Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — Z RESERVE

Form (Civilian Occupations)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will cut down the frequency of sending out Form D406 to Z reservists, in view of the fact that it would be sufficient to send out this form once a year only.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Yes, Sir. This will be done.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that he will receive grateful thanks from many people for doing that?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Call-up (Determining Factors)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for War how far the factors originally determining the call-up of Z reservists, namely, specialised knowledge, first out, first back and location of training near home, have been operated in respect of all the men called to serve.

Mr. Head: Selection of Z reservists to train in 1952 was governed by qualification for the particular job; the principle of last out, first back; and, in the case of Territorial Army units, the location of the drill hall.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that I have asked how far these factors determining the call-up have been operating, because there is a great deal of criticism that men do not possess specialist knowledge, that we do not adhere to the "last out, first back" principle, and that we are not posting men near their homes?

Mr. Head: I can only answer for my own period during the Z Reserve call-up, and my experience is that one criticism was mainly on the geographical side. We did a good deal to get men called up in the areas where they live, so that there was a chance of their joining a Territorial Army unit afterwards. As far as the other two points are concerned, I am not claiming—and I do not think my predecessor would claim—that the call-up was perfect, but those were the two principles which were aimed at. Although sometimes they were not achieved, an attempt was made to make them 100 per cent. successful.

Emergency Recall

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for War to make clear his intentions in the event of a state of emergency arising in regard to those who have undergone Z training and to those he proposes to exclude from this training, respectively; and what is to be expected by both classes as to the period when they will be recalled.

Mr. Head: Broadly speaking, those Z reservists who have undergone training in the past two years would be required for recall during the first months of an emergency: of those who have not been trained, some would be required in the first months, but the majority would be required at a later stage. As more trained National Service men become available in the Reserve Army, some of these men will be needed later, others will no longer be required.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that his recent announcement that he would finish calling up the Z Reserve has caused a great deal of disquiet among persons who have undergone their Z Reserve training; and that his reply that they will be called up first would appear to indicate that those who have been shut out from the Z Reserve are in a much more favourable position and will not be required?

Mr. Head: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the whole of this scheme was devised in order that we shall have a more efficient and more rapid mobilisation, and, therefore, the men who were called up were those who were last out. who, especially, would have various jobs to do and who would be required at an early stage of mobilisation. I hope that


mobilisation will not take place, but in any scheme we have to call up those men who are most vital in an emergency.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War why he has decided not to call up the Class Z Reserve in 1953.

Mr. Head: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question on this subject last Tuesday.

Age Limits

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will review the age limits for the Z Reserve.

Mr. Head: I explained the present postion in my reply to a Question on this subject on 25th March this year. I cannot at the present time add to that statement.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the fact that it is now considered that we have adequate reserves and that Z reservists are not to be called up next year, is it not time that people over 40 should be relieved of their liability to the Z Reserve so that they may volunteer for some other form of service?

Mr. Head: The whole question of the future obligations, both of Z reservists and of men now doing part-time service, is under review, and I hope to be able to make a statement or some announcement to the House, although I could not give a date at the present moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Duty Travel

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for War the mileage laid down in his regulations beyond which all military personnel travelling on duty are bound to travel by train.

Mr. Head: It is our policy to use the railways for duty travel whenever possible.

Mr. Remnant: Does my right hon. Friend mean by that answer that commanding officers are debarred from using cheaper transport, where it is available?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. On duty travel, such journeys should be performed by rail, except when that method would clearly entail serious delay or marked inconvenience. Any journeys of a private nature may be taken in the way the individual likes.

Mr. Remnant: Does my right hon. Friend mean that the cost is not taken into consideration?

Mr. Head: These journeys are carried out on warrants, and, normally, where a warrant is issued, it is for a railway journey.

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for War the cost of travel incurred for 77 apprentices, who travelled from Arborfield to Harrogate on duty, for the long weekend, commencing 7th November, 1952.

Mr. Head: On this occasion. 61 apprentices travelled to Harrogate, and' the cost of travel was £68 8s. It was paid' for from the Arborfield School's sports fund.

R.A.O.C. Pay Office, Leeds

Mr. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Regimental Pay Office of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Leeds, is to be moved to a hutted camp at Ovendon Park, near Halifax; and whether he has considered any compensation for the increased expenses to the staff who may live in Leeds.

Mr. Head: My hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member about this. We must get this Pay Office into permanent accommodation. The civilian staff will be entitled to various allowances to compensate for the extra expense of setting up house in Halifax and if, temporarily,. a householder cannot find accommodation in the Halifax area, he will be able to claim refund, within certain limits, of the extra cost of daily travel to his work in Halifax.

Mr. Pannell: Will the Minister say why it has taken his Department such a long time to comply with the request for information and why it has been necessary to put down a Parliamentary Question to get an answer to a letter which was sent two months ago? Secondly, why, generally speaking, in their relationships with the staffs does his Department seem to handle this matter in rather a ham-handed manner?
Thirdly, is the Minister aware that the staffs still consider that the offers of compensation for changing from Leeds to Halifax are in many cases completely inadequate, and will he consult with


the staffs again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am not one of those Members who usually inflicts unnecessary Questions on the House in the same way as my interrupters do. Will the Minister see that there is further consultation with the staffs to see whether we cannot get an abatement of most of their grievances about which they have written to me and I have written to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Head: Changes of this kind are always unwelcome when they start. The Regimental Pay Office was unsatisfactory through being scattered in the old days in requisitioned accommodation. They will now go to a central place where they will all he together, and I hope that very soon the staffs will settle down in Halifax. If there are any particular difficulties I shall be only too glad to attend to them.

Manpower (Review)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the danger of war has receded, he will now review the manpower position in the Army.

Mr. Head: I am always trying to economise in the use of manpower, especially since the total strength of the Army is likely to decrease by about 15,000 in the next two years. Unfortunately, our overseas and cold war commitments are not necessarily reduced even if a hot war becomes less likely.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the large numbers of complaints, of which the Minister has already had evidence this afternoon, and of the fact that production of equipment for the men in the Armed Forces is being reduced and of the repeated Ministerial statements that the danger of war is receding, is not this a time for some special inquiry, apart from the review which the Minister is making, to see whether some new comprehensive measures cannot be introduced into the system of the Army in order to reduce the number of men required?

Mr. Head: When one considers the number of men called up annually, I do not believe that the number of complaints is really excessive. Although there have been several of these special inquiries in the past, it has been found that they have not had really a very considerable

effect in practical reduction, partly due to the lack of specialised knowledge which is very difficult for any impartial civilian to obtain. By and large, I believe that the inquiries which I have now set up will produce good effects in the coming year.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend not think it strange that in view of the assertions of the other side of the House that the Conservative Government would increase the risk of war they should now be pressing for a reduction in the Service?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report by Sir George Bailey and Mr. John Little which was published before the war? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman read it in order to learn the lessons from it?

Mr. Head: I am obliged to the hon. Member.

Regulars (Recruitment)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War to give an estimate of the number of Regular soldiers required to enable compulsory service to be abolished and to reduce the period of National Service by six months.

Mr. Head: The total abolition of National Service would require an addition of some 175,000 Regulars, including nearly 5,000 officers, over and above the present numbers. The reduction of the period of full-time National Service by six months would require an increase of about 50,000 Regulars.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does he right hon. Gentleman not think it more desirable now that he should refer to his previous argument and try and get those people rather than insist that this two-year period is essential?

Mr. Head: I am, and I always have been, in favour of increasing Regular recruiting, which has doubled, but I personally believe that to increase it to this extent is not within the bounds of possibility at present.

Mr. Shinwell: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman remember what he said when he was on this side of the House, namely, that if we were to step up Regular recruitment, six months compulsory service would be adequate? Why does he not


do precisely what he asked the Labour Government to do, that is increase the rate of pay?

Mr. Head: The answer to that is very simple. When I made those remarks it was before Korea, when our overseas commitments were very small. Secondly, I would remind hon. Members that right hon. Gentlemen opposite deferred putting up the pay until it was two years too late. Had they done it earlier they would have avoided a big run-out.

Coronation Procession (Regiments)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War what regiments from North and South Staffordshire are to take part in the ceremonial duties in connection with the Coronation.

Mr. Head: The North and South Staffordshire Regiments and the Staffordshire Yeomanry will be represented in the Coronation procession and on street lining duties.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a wise policy to draw troops for these ceremonial parades, if possible, from all branches of the Army in order to avoid the impression that regiments which may not be quite so famous historically as others, although they are equally courageous, are not to be represented?

Mr. Head: I have been through the matter of representation for the Coronation with great care, and I have tried to do my best for everyone, but it is not an easy task.

Rhine Headquarters

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War the cost of the new British Army of the Rhine headquarters; and for what purpose it is being constructed.

Mr. Head: The cost of this new headquarters is likely to be about 130 million deutschmarks, which is now being met from German occupation costs. The move of this headquarters is being carried out for strategic reasons.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the answer mean that the cost of this grandiose scheme will fall upon the German Government and not upon British funds? As the amount is equivalent to £12,500,000,

is it not fantastic that at this time so much money should be spent on headquarters for B.A.O.R.? Is B.A.O.R. going on for ever?

Mr. Head: As to the first part of the supplementary question, that is dependent upon a certain number of factors into which I cannot go now. As to the necessity for the move of the headquarters, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that as it is situated at present it is the reverse of the Duke of Plaza-Toro, being in front of instead of behind the foremost line of defence.

Mr. Wigg: How many batmen and officers' servants will be required to maintain this grandiose headquarters?

Mr. Head: I shall require notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Bandsmen

Mr. Blyton: asked the Secretary of State for War how many bandsmen there are in the Army; and how much of their time is devoted to military training.

Mr. Head: About 4,900 men, women and boys. All men undergo an initial course of military training and as combatant soldiers are liable for any form of military duty for which they may be needed.

Mr. Jeger: Does that number include the members of the Government engaged in blowing their own trumpet?

Industrial Civilians

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary of State for War how many industrial civilians have been dismissed in the past 12 months; and how far they have been replaced by National Service men.

Mr. Head: The information asked for is not available centrally in my Department, but I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

Anti-aircraft Command (Manpower)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the manpower strength of


the anti-aircraft branch of the Army in the United Kingdom which would be available in the event of an emergency.

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he declines to give an answer? Does he understand that I am not asking for specific figures but put down the Question to enable him to make a general statement indicating whether the position is satisfactory or not?

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman's Question asked me to give the manpower strength of the anti-aircraft branch of the Army, and the reasons for my not giving the information are identical with those given by the right hon. Gentleman himself on 22nd February, 1949.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes both of us to consult the columns of HANSARD to witness our respective statements on this subject, I shall be glad to meet him, but will he address himself to the Question? I am asking him whether he will make a statement on the strength of the anti-aircraft branch. I do not ask for the actual figures. I want to know whether, in his opinion, the position is satisfactory. If it is not satisfactory, will he give us the reason why?

Mr. Head: That is not the exact Question on the Order Paper. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's Question, but I thought he asked for the exact strength. However, on the whole the present position is satisfactory.

Mr. Snow: Is not the manpower and recruiting position of the anti-aircraft units of the Army very seriously jeopardised by the knowledge among many people who know anything about antiaircraft artillery that the present equipment on issue is hopelessly obsolete? Until there is some evidence that the Government will provide equipment capable of remote detonation by electronic means. will not that situation continue?

Mr. Head: We are doing our best on the equipment side, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the height and speed of modern bomber aircraft make the task of the anti-aircraft gun an extremely difficult one. I can assure him that in the matter of guided missiles a very high priority for research is being given.

Two-tier Bunks

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of military personnel sleeping in two-tier bunks at Didcot, Portsmouth and elsewhere; and what steps he is taking to have this inconvenient and unhealthy practice stopped.

Mr. Head: There are 420 soldiers sleeping in two-tier bunks at Didcot and none at Portsmouth. I am obtaining the numbers elsewhere, and will write to the hon. Member within the next few days I would like to do away with this practice, but it is caused by shortage of accommodation. I think it is preferable to closely spaced single beds or using leaky huts. The health aspect is closely watched and so far has not been adverse

Mr. Craddock: Whilst thanking the Minister for his detailed statement, may I ask if he is aware that huts erected to meet the needs of 15 or 16 soldiers by the use of two-tier bunks are now accommodating 32 soldiers, which makes it extremely difficult for these people to have the ordinary conveniences of putting their kit away, and means that twice the proper number of people are using the available space? Is not this really a very unhappy set of circumstances, in addition to being very unhealthy?

Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I should like to build a lot of new barracks, but the building capacity is not in the country. Where men share a bunk they have double cupboards and double the space for hanging up their kit.

Didcot Depot

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of civilians employed in the stores at Didcot and the number of military personnel.

Mr. Head: The numbers are 2,344 civilians and 666 military.

Casualties (Notification of Next of Kin)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consult his hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions concerning the possibility of using the Ministry of Pensions Welfare Service to send welfare officers to interview next


of kin when Army personnel are killed in preference to the abrupt method of sending a telegram.

Mr. Head: I have looked into this procedure again and, as a result, I think that even if my hon. Friend could undertake the task it would be likely to cause serious and probably distressing delays which the present system does avoid.

Mr. Simmons: Does the Minister realise that a personal visit from a sympathetic person such as is to be found on the welfare staff of the Ministry of Pensions would do a great deal to soften the blow and would not be so abrupt as the receipt of a telegram? Will he have another look at this matter?

Mr. Head: I am aware of that point, but to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests would entail calling on a very large staff. We have special arrangements whereby a man can ask for a telegram to be sent not to his next of kin but to another individual, and where the next of kin is in hospital that is also done.

Field Marshal Slim

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War the amount of pension Field Marshal Slim will receive on retirement; and what are his regulations with regard to the acceptance of a salary for employment after retirement in such a case.

Mr. Head: After ceasing to be employed, Field Marshal Slim receives under Royal Warrant a rate of half pay. These retiring awards are payable irrespective of subsequent employment outside the Services.

Mr. Simmons: Does not it seem rather ridiculous to retire a man and pension him when he is fit enough to take on a job at £10,000 a year? He is not a disabled man; he is retired. Why give him a pension if he is capable of doing a job at £10,000 a year?

Mr. Head: Field Marshal Slim, as a Field Marshal, is permanently on the active list. He is now fulfilling a very important duty, and I feel that he has more than earned what the country is giving him.

Junior Officers (Territorial Army)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War how far the junior officers in the Territorial Army receive training while in the Service; and what form it takes.

Mr. Head: A junior officer in the Territorial Army is trained to carry out his job and to fit himself for the next higher rank.

Territorial Army (Bounty)

Mr. Sylvester: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the amount of the Territorial Army bounty is preventing men from enrolling in the Service; and if he will consider increasing this.

Mr. Head: At present I am not convinced that the size of the bounty is the major factor.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association have said for some time now that the bounty should be increased in order to attract more men into this very important branch of the Service, and does he recognise that while the £9 and £13 bounty was sufficient some time ago, when prices were lower, it is now totally inadequate because prices have risen? Will not he make an attempt to attract more men into this Service by raising the bounty?

Mr. Head: The number of volunteers into the Territorial Army last year increased by 20,000. The problem, as I see it, is to induce men to remain in the Territorial Army after they have completed their part-time service, and that is the problem to which I am now devoting my attention.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that 20,000 more men enrolled; but many left, and they left because the conditions were not attractive enough. In the interests of the Service, is it not desirable to consider raising the bounty? Would not the right hon. Gentleman approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to ascertain his views on the subject?

Mr. Head: I am always ready to approach the Chancellor on these matters, but in this instance the problem has not yet arisen. These men have


volunteered but have not reached the end of their three and a half years' part-time service. When they do so, that problem will arise. I am looking into a large number of factors affecting the Territorial Army which, I hope, will, induce them to remain in it for a longer period.

King George VI Memorial Fund (Contributions)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if his attention has been drawn to the orders issued by Colonel G. O. Thompson. Commandant of No. 1 Engineer Stores Depot, Long Marston, concerning the compulsory contribution by officers and other Tanks to a voluntary fund; whether he will state, in detail, the nature of these orders; and whether they were made with his knowledge, consent and approval;
(2) for what purpose a fund was established by the officer commanding No. 1 Engineers Stores Depot, Long Marston; in what manner and by what means this fund was established; how much was collected; what action has, or will be, taken against those refusing to contribute; and how many were in the latter category;
(3) if his attention has been drawn to the statement officially made by Colonel G. O. Thompson, officer commanding No. 1 Engineers Stores Depot, Long Marston, that no one has the right to inquire into the reasons for an Army order; and whether this statement was made with his approval.

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Part I orders issued by a unit, particulars of which have been sent him, prescribed a sliding scale of donations for all ranks payable to a national fund; that those who did not wish to contribute were required to inform their commanding officer of the reason; whether he will ensure that all donations thus raised will be returned; and whether he will issue an Army Council Instruction prohibiting the use of Part I orders for the raising of funds in this way for any charity however deserving.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to a recent order issued by the Colonel Commanding No. 1 Engineers

Stores Depot at Long Marston. whereby officers and men were informed that a deduction according to rank would be made from their pay, towards the King George VI Memorial Fund; and whether the notice is in accordance with orders which he has approved.

Mr. Head: An Army Council Instruction was issued drawing attention to this appeal, and it was made clear that all contributions were to be on a voluntary basis. The orders of the Commander of No. 1 Engineers Stores Depot were not in accord with the instructions issued by the War Office. In practice the order was not enforced, and the total actually subscribed amounted to considerably less than the prescribed scale. Colonel Thompjson denies that he ever made the statement attributed to him in Question No. 53.

Mr. Lewis: Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to the "Birmingham Gazette" of Saturday, 29th November, in which the colonel is interviewed by a reporter and is in quotes as having said that no one can query an Army order? His actual statement is in quotes, which lays down the scale which officers and other ranks must contribute unless they give reasons for their non-contribution to the commanding officer. In view of the fact that he is quoted, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this matter should be further investigated to see whether or not the officer did or did not issue those instructions?

Mr. Head: This matter has been investigated, and we have been in touch with Colonel Thompson. I do not think that necessarily quotes in a newspaper can be taken as an absolutely Grade A source by the War Office.

Hon. Members: Investigate it.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no repetition of this conduct by any commanding officer, and would he, for the information of other ranks, tell the House what other ranks should say when they go to see their commanding officer in the circumstances outlined in this Question?

Mr. Head: I think that anybody who gave an assurance that human nature will never repeat itself is very unwise.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Without in any way giving support to this procedure, would my right hon. Friend say whether it is a fair comparison to say that it is contracting out of a voluntary contribution?

Mr. Chapman: What action has the right hon. Gentleman taken against this officer for posting the order in the first place?

Mr. Head: I am in touch with this officer.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Macmillan.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I have three Questions on this subject, Mr. Speaker, and at the moment I have asked only one supplementary. May I ask for your permission, in view of that, to ask another?

Mr. Speaker: No. I think the hon. Member asked a very long supplementary.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Non-Military Duties

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many National Service men are employed as officers' servants;
(2) to what extent National Service men are employed as gardeners in the homes of serving officers above the rank of major;
(3) to what extent National Service men are employed in the homes of officers at Catterick Camp; and if he will state the nature of their occupation.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men are employed as gardeners in camps, barracks and depots in the United Kingdom; and how many man-hours per month are occupied by these tasks.

Mr. Murray: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers' servants, waiters in officers' and other messes, and gardeners are employed at Brancepeth Camp, County Durham; and how many are Regulars and National Service men. respectively.

Mr. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of National Service men in the Barnard Castle Camp;

and how many are employed as officers' servants and in other non-military duties.

Mr. Head: No National Service men are employed as gardeners. Scales of batmen are laid down for all units and at the present time are under-implemented. The returns do not differentiate between National Service men and Regulars, and to obtain this information I should have to make special inquiries of every unit of the British Army at home and abroad. I do not think this is justified. Commanding officers have been told and are well aware of the need to avoid the misuse of National Service men within units.
I am making special inquiries and will write about the three specific cases raised.

Mr. Greenwood: Will the Secretary of State conduct an investigation to find out exactly how National Service men and Regular soldiers are being employed in view of the fact that the only possible justification for conscription is lack of manpower? Does he not think it is quite ridiculous for able-bodied young men to be employed as parlourmaids, nursemaids and so on, and is it not about time that the War Office really went into this problem?

Mr. Head: I have gone very deeply into this problem since assuming this office and have saved 10,000 men out of the tail, which was not done in the six years of the previous Government. I would add that the whole question of the use of manpower in the Army is one in which the National Service men and the Regulars are together in units, say 500 in a battalion, and that unit has got to arrange its domestic economy. The commanding officers are told that the object of National Service is to train men to be fighting soldiers. Within those terms of reference, we have to trust them.

Mr. Strachey: In view of the first remark of the right hon. Gentleman, would he not agree that the saving in the tail was the result of the recommendations of the Templer Committee? Secondly, is there not something to be said for the idea of not using National Service men at all for this purpose of officer's servants.

Mr. Head: Replying to the right hon. Gentleman's first comment, I am sure he would wish to join me in a tribute to what


General Templer did, but we did put on foot a subsequent inquiry and I am starting a further one. I think that every Secretary of State should reduce the Army by a few thousand men a year as part of his job.
It is impossible to be didactic about the National Service man. There are some units where the only source of manpower —and they are exceptional—would be National Service men and there are National Service men as cooks, batmen and in other jobs for which they have specifically volunteered. It is not every National Service man who is particularly qualified for these kind of jobs. I do not myself believe that the use of National Service men is seriously abused at the present time.

Mr. Slater: Is the Minister satisfied with the state of affairs which is going on in the north? My Question related to the Barnard Castle Camp, and would it not be to the advantage of all concerned if there was a restriction in the call-up of National Service men whereby they would be able to make a better contribution to the national economy through being engaged in civil employment instead of being called up?

Mr. Head: I have not the time here to go into the question of the call-up and civil employment. but I would tell the hon. Member that our prospects are that we shall be 15,000 men under strength in the Army in two years' time. We are now attempting to make the best and most economical use of manpower.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously tell the House that he is unable to discover how many National Service men in certain of the Home Commands are employed as officers' servants and undertake gardening duties to the disadvantage of their military training? Does he not think that that could be easily ascertained?

Mr. Head: I have said that no National Service men are employed as gardeners: that I have had three specific inquiries concerned with Home Commands and that I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Members concerned. All I further said was that, in view of the world-wide dispersal of our Army, to ask for this return would not be justified.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that all the Questions which have been addressed to him today by hon. Members on the other side of the House refer to a situation which existed under his predecessors and that nothing at all was done?

Mr. Swingler: Does the Minister not remember that, under the last Government, manpower economy committees were established in each Service Department and that as a result considerable economies were made? Is not now the appropriate time, when the defence programme has been reviewed and expenditure on materials is being cut down, to make a general review of the manpower situation, and is he really arguing that to call up men for these purposes and interrupt their careers with all the economic consequences to the nation is justified?

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman has a Question down about the review of manpower which I will answer later.

Mr. Isaacs: Has the Minister considered employing disabled ex-Service men for jobs of this sort? They are men who, in many cases, have had considerable military experience and would be quite willing to take such posts, and that would prevent interfering with the training of the young.

Mr. Head: We have done a great deal in the way of substituting civilians for soldiers throughout the Army, but the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that one of the difficulties of expanding that still further is expense.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman told the House that many of these cooks and officers' servants volunteered for the job. Does he now say that the principle of volunteering is allowed to take precedence over National Service training?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. What I said was that these jobs have to be done in the Army, and if any of us goes into the cook-house we would find several cooks —I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself has been around—who would tell us that the reason they were in the cook-house was that they had volunteered for the job. Very often such people intend to be cooks when they go out of the Army. All I said was that to prevent a National


Service man being a cook if he wished to volunteer for it would not be a very wise step.

Mr. T. Brown: Is the Minister not aware that it does not serve any useful purpose replying in the manner he has done to Questions on the Order Paper when the evidence in our possession is overwhelmingly against the answers he has given? Might I ask him if he would not respond to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for an investigation into the charges that we have received from these men about them being employed on unnecessary work to suit the convenience of the officers?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Gentleman will send me any particulars I will look into them willingly, but I have three investigations going on at the present time in a broad sense in order to save manpower.

Mr. Brown: The particulars are in the right hon. Gentleman's possession.

Mr. Greenwood: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and in order to provide the right hon. Gentleman with the evidence, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Grey: asked the Secretary of State for War how many complaints have been received in the last 12 months alleging that National Service men are not fully occupied in regimental duties.

Mr. Head: To get these details would involve circularising all the formation headquarters in this country, which I do not think would be justified.

Mr. Grey: In view of the large number of complaints which the right hon. Gentleman must receive, does he not think there ought to be an inquiry into the whole problem of National Service?

Mr. Head: I repeat that, considering the number called up, the number of complaints received by the War Office is surprisingly small.

Mr. Maude: Is it not a fact that both in the matter of ensuring that National Service men are fully employed and do not have their time wasted and in the saving of administrative tail the present

Government have done more in one year than the Labour Government did in six years?

Regulars (Training Duties)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Regular officers and other ranks are engaged in training National Service men in the United King-don; and how many are engaged in similar tasks in Germany.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Regular soldiers are employed in training the National Service men.

Mr. Head: Throughout the training organisation, the National Service man trains alongside the Regular recruit and it is not therefore practicable to segregate the training staff dealing with National Service men alone. In the United Kingdom there are some 2,600 Regular officers and 15,000 Regular other ranks employed in the training and administration of about 49,000 Regulars and National Service men. In the British Army of the Rhine, there are no training units and men are trained within their units.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister satisfied that these figures represent a fair proportion of trainees to those who are training them, and are steps being taken to reduce the number of people who are doing the training?

Mr. Head: They represent a considerable reduction on a year ago, and I am trying to make the number smaller next year.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the figures that he has given to the House for the training cadres and the number of men being trained in the United Kingdom disclose that almost half the total number is required to train the number who are being trained and that that surely is a most undesirable position?

Mr. Head: No, Sir, that is not so. Half is quite incorrect. I would point out further that these men are training non-stop throughout the year and are turning out something like 200,000 trained men and that we must have some number left for leave, replacements and. people in the pipe-line and so forth.

Commissions

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the official statement of Major-General B. C. H. Kimmins, Director-General of the Territorial Army, that 80 per cent. of National Service men granted commissions lived south of a line drawn across the country through Birmingham; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Head: The statement was not, in fact, made personally by the Director of the Territorial Army. It is, however, correct so far as England is concerned, and this fact has been known for some years.

Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this points quite clearly to the fact that the War Office selection board system has broken down, because people are being selected as officers on the basis not of their competence but of their accents?

Mr. Head: The hon. Member should appreciate that since I have been in this job I have started a special school at Welbeck to try and obtain more officers from the north of England. I hope very much that it will he a success.

Overseas Postings

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will raise the age at which National Service men may be posted on active service abroad.

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Mr. Gower: First, will my right hon. Friend keep the matter constantly under review? Second, will some proper distinction be drawn in judging the issue, between time of technical peace and time of total war?

Mr. Head: At present we have about 11⅓ divisions, l0⅓ of which are overseas. The present system has been very carefully thought out, and I believe it to be fair, and we could not alter it without very considerable embarrassment.

Clothing (Purchase)

Mr. Baird: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether National Service personnel have to pay

for replacements of socks and other essential clothing discarded as a result of wear and tear;
(2) what allocations of uniforms and equipment are made to National Service men on enlistment; and what replacements are made from time to time for wear and tear;
(3) what charge is made to National Service men for socks and shirts which they have to buy as replacements; and how this price compares with prices of similar articles in the retail market in England.

Mr. Head: A National Service man's clothing and personal equipment when first given to him are provided free. The soldier gets a weekly tax-free allowance out of which he pays for certain articles of clothing when they need to be replaced. The rest of his clothing and equipment is replaced free when it is worn out. On the prices charged for socks, I would refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) on 25th November. The price of a flannel shirt is 23s. ld., but the National Service man gets three shirts free when he joins.

Mr. Baird: Is it not disgraceful that National Service men should have to pay for the renewal of socks and shirts worn out as a result of wear and tear? Are they not paying more for socks in the N.A.A.F.I. than they would have to in this country, and, when they return on leave from Germany and other countries, do they not have to buy them here in order to save a few shillings?

Mr. Head: Of the personal clothing issued to a man, some items are replaced free and some have to be paid for by him. He is given a weekly allowance, starting at 8d. and rising, I think, to about ls. 6d., from which he can replace those items. By and large, the number of socks and shirts given to a man should very nearly last out his period of service. The allowance alters annually in accordance with the prices of shirts, socks and other items in the annual cost list issued by the War Office.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister aware of the dissatisfaction caused to National Service men when they go to be demobbed and find that certain items of


equipment have to be paid for before they are given their final chits to leave? Is that the way to encourage them to join the Territorial Army with enthusiasm?

Mr. Head: I was not aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. As he has now informed me about it, I will look into it.

Mr. Baird: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again, as the allowance is completely inadequate and causes ill-feeling in the ranks?

Mr. Head: If one adds up the total allowance issued for the replacement of kit and compares it with the amount of kit bought, it will be seen that a very large amount of the allowance is not spent.

Civilian Studies

Mr. McGhee: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the arrangements to enable National Service men to train and study while in the Service for their return to civilian life.

Mr. Head: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a recent pamphlet "Education during National Service" which is available at sale offices of Her Majesty's Stationery Office throughout the country. He will see that the Army gives to a National Service man below School Certificate standard a compulsory general education during his first year of service to give a sound background for further study. National Service men above this level are each given a form to fill up regarding voluntary education to meet individual needs.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Leave

Mr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made for leave for soldiers serving in Korea.

Mr. Head: Every 10 days some 500 officers and men are flown from Korea to the leave centre at Ebisu near Tokyo for five days' leave. Short periods of leave, from three to seven days, are also granted at the divisional rest centre on the sea at Inchon.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers serving in Korea for 18 months are being asked to pay £51 on fares for 54 days' home leave; and what steps he is taking to reduce or abolish this charge.

Mr. Head: Soldiers serving in Korea are not granted home leave either at the public expense or at their own.

Mr. Jeger: Is any arrangement made for leave after these men have been posted from Korea to other stations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have complaints from the parents of lads serving in Korea that after 18 months service and then being posted to the Middle East they are being offered 54 days' leave at home if they pay £51 towards their fare?

Mr. Head: I am aware of this problem. Units go for a three years' tour of overseas duty, which is now in the Far East or the Middle East. If during the first period of that three years' tour they go to Korea they have still another period of perhaps 18 months, and they probably go to the Middle East. I could not give a whole unit leave to come back to this country. They therefore have local leave and there is an opportunity, if they wish, to buy a passage at cheap terms and come back to this country.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that 18 months in Korea in the conditions which prevail there are equivalent to 18 months in the Middle East? Are there not special considerations in view of the hardship and the war danger in Korea compared with the Middle East?

Mr. Head: The whole movements problem of units in the British Army would be disrupted if 18 months in Korea counted as the whole of a three years overseas tour.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recent casualties. in Korea included soldiers of the Black Watch, aged 19 and 20, who were called up in February and were on the casualty list in October? Will he consider giving these lads—I will not call them men—permanent leave in this country?

Mr. Head: The hon. Member has a Question on the Order Paper on that subject.

Personal Case

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 22454808 Signalman Brian Clackett, of Birmingham, a National Service man aged 20. complained of pains in the chest on 28th September, but was not admitted to the British Commonwealth communication zone medical unit in Korea until 9th October, where he died two hours after admission; why no treatment was prescribed for him after the X-ray examination; why he was moved about for some days prior to his death; why his relatives were not informed of his illness; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the health of National Service men in Korea and to see that parents are adequately informed.

Mr. Head: I have explained to the hon. Member the exceptional difficulty of diagnosis in this case. This man was found after his death to have a tuberculous cavity so situated that it was inevitably concealed by the heart shadow in the X-ray plate and, therefore, remained undetected. It was for this reason that specific treatment for tuberculosis was not instituted, nor was he removed to base. His move to 25 Canadian Field Dressing Station on 29th September was to give him better facilities while under treatment and examination. Since until just before his death there were no indications that he was seriously or dangerously ill, his parents were not informed.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that six days after his X-ray and three days before he died he wrote to a friend and complained that nothing was done for him and that he was being moved about from place to place? As the Minister has said, he was moved to at least three different hospitals. It is difficult for parents to escape the conclusion that neglect has taken place, especially in view of the fact, to which I called his attention some time ago, that a National Service man died of tuberculosis on his way to hospital and was never treated. Secondly, will the Minister do something to prevent the mental torture which is inflicted upon parents by a telegram saying that a man died of haemorrhage of the lung when they did not know that he was ill?

Mr. Head: As I tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, I am informed by the

medical authorities that this was a quite exceptional case. By and large every effort is made to detect these diseases at an early stage, but in this particular case nobody knew what was wrong with the man, owing to the failure of the diagnosis for the reasons I have given.

PUBLIC BOARDS (APPOINTMENTS AND SALARIES)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish in the form of a White Paper an up-to-date comprehensive list of all members appointed to central and regional nationalised boards of a commercial character, with details of individual salaries, pensions and expenses allowed, and contract dates, together with a separate list showing all individuals holding more than one appointment; and what those appointments are.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): A White Paper of this character will be published shortly. I should like, however, to take this opportunity of acknowledging the valuable services rendered by those to whom the Question refers.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Could the Prime Minister give us what he felt unable to give last year—some information about the salaries and expenses paid to the directors and managers of the larger financial, industrial and commercial undertakings carried on under private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I thought I gave a fair answer to the Question asked, and I put in something at the end which gained the approval of the party opposite, because I recognise all the loyal effort that is given in all these services; but I am not going to embark on a comparison of the cost of running capitalist enterprises or Socialist enterprises.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since such a comparison is very frequently made, and aspersions are cast on members of nationalised boards, would the Prime Minister at least consider giving us information about the salaries and expenses paid to directors and managers of private coal companies and electricity undertakings before they were nationalised?

The Prime Minister: I certainly do not feel called upon to embark on official returns of that character. There is, of course, a general feeling that private enterprise manages things much cheaper for the general public.

CORONATION PROCESSION (EX-SERVICE MEN)

Mr. Gough: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements are proposed to ensure that the British Legion and, in particular, the disabled, will be suitably represented in the Coronation procession; and if arrangements will be made for their massed standard bearers either to take part in the procession or to be assured of an honoured position near Westminster Abbey.

The Prime Minister: Arrangements are being made for representatives of the British Legion, including massed standard bearers, and of disabled former members,of the Forces to have special places on the processional route.
Moreover, it has already been announced that the Queen will hold a Review of ex-Service men and women on 5th July next year.

Mr. Gough: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the answer will give the very greatest satisfaction to all ex-Service,associations throughout the land?

POWERS OF MINISTERS

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a committee on the lines of that set up in October, 1929, to inquire into the powers of Ministers and to make recommendations which will secure more freedom for the individual from bureaucratic control.

The Prime Minister: I should prefer to await the report of the Select Committee which is to be appointed to consider the control exercised by the House over delegated legislation before considering whether any wider inquiry is either necessary or desirable.

Sir W. Smithers: While I realise the appalling difficulties of cleaning up the mess left by the Socialists, may I ask my right hon. Friend to implement his slogan, "Set the people free," as quickly as he possibly can?

IRISH AGRICULTURE

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will approach the Governments of Ireland with a view to making a joint survey of the potentialities of Irish agriculture; and whether he will consider a Treasury grant to further an Irish agricultural survey.

The Prime Minister: The question of a joint survey is a matter for the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman's answer; it was inaudible at this end of the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: If that is so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat the answer to No. 48.

The Prime Minister: Do you wish me to repeat the answer to Question No. 48 Sir?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. It was not heard.

The Prime Minister: The question of a joint survey is a matter for the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. H. Morrison: On a point of order. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) says he did not hear the answer, is it in order for the Prime Minister deliberately to repeat the answer in a tone of voice which could not possibly be heard?

Mr. Speaker: I must confess that I know of no precedent for this situation.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this great country of Ireland is worthy only of an inaudible answer from the Box, when he talks so much about the friendship between the Commonwealth and the British people?

The Prime Minister: I must ask for notice of that one.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. My understanding is, Mr. Speaker, that you requested the right hon. Gentleman to repeat his answer to Question No. 48 on


the ground that his previous reply was inaudible. I submit that he deliberately defied an order from the Chair. In view of the debate which occurred in this House yesterday, are hon. Members on the Front Bench to be treated at a different level from those who occupy the back benches?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. There is no differentiation whatever between Members on all benches, but the situation was rather peculiar. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, and I could hear him quite well. Then there was a request for it to be repeated, and I asked the Prime Minister whether he would repeat it. He repeated it in a tone which I think was lower than the one in which he gave his original answer. I cannot say that the matter is covered by the rules of order, but I hope that hon. Members have now heard the answer.

Mr. Grimond: Before the Prime Minister answers these Questions about Ireland, audibly or inaudibly, will he bear in mind that there is another part of the country for which he has much more direct responsibility—the Highlands of Scotland, which are also capable of making a great contribution to our food supplies if they get much needed Treasury assistance?

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (DEFENCE PROGRAMME CHANGES)

Mr. Lee: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that the most recent changes in the defence programme do not result in unemployment in the engineering industry.

The Prime Minister: The changes will not markedly reduce the total labour force employed on defence production in the engineering industry. There may be some redundancies at first in a few firms, but the Ministry of Labour are being consulted on the best way to limit the effect of these redundancies and they will arrange in advance to help any workers who become unemployed to find other work.

Mr. Lee: Would not the Prime Minister agree that many firms will have already decided their programming for next year and that that involves the lay-out of their

machinery, the balance of their labour force and the type of raw materials they would need for the arms programme? Does he not agree that unless this matter is handled extremely carefully it will mean that those firms will not be able to substitute another type of product for the orders they thought they were going to receive? Would he make certain that a hiatus does not arise by tailing off the defence programme instead of abruptly cutting it?

Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to ensure that the capacity and manpower released by this reduction in re-armament is not frittered away on consumer goods but is used for export goods such as civil aviation?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be very much in line with much of our thoughts.

Mr. Lee: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give me some assurance on the point which I raised, which may well condition the attitude of the engineering industry towards the changes which be now contemplates?

CORONATION CEREMONY (TELEVISION)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of widespread public interest in the matter, he will reconsider his refusal to disclose the advice tendered to the Coronation Commission by Her Majesty's Government on the subject of televising the Coronation ceremony.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) yesterday. I must however draw the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the announcement made yesterday by the Earl Marshal.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that, public opinion having compelled the Cabinet to change its mind, the latest announcement by the Coronation Committee, to which the Prime Minister has referred, is much more in keeping with popular sentiment than the original ban on television for which the Cabinet was solely and entirely responsible?

The Prime Minister: One is always glad to gain applause from any quarter, but I think this is a most ungracious way of treating this grave and important affair. Parliament has expressed its views and opinions in the free and easy way we do at Question time. Great care has been given to every aspect, and if the result is something of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman approves, surely he might have said, "Thank you."

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I should like to thank the Prime Minister for having changed his mind. That is all I am saying.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL

"to amend the law as to the benefits to be payable to or in respect of contributors to superannuation funds maintained by local authorities and as to the persons entitled to participate in the benefits of those funds; to amend the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937; to provide alternative benefits to those provided under section nine of the Local Government (Clerks) Act, 1931; to make provision as to payments due from local authorities to deceased employees; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Harold Macmillan; supported by Mr. J. Stuart; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 32].

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Considered in Committee. [2nd Allotted Day.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(SALES OF TRANSPORT UNITS.)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 40 and 41, and to insert:

(a) one or more specified units from among the transport units created in accordance with the provisions of the next following subsection; or
(b) specified shares or parcels of shares, being the whole or part of the share capital in one or more of the companies created in accordance with the provisions of the next following subsection; or
(c) such of the vehicles, properties or other assets excluded from the scheme of distribution under the provisions of the next following subsection as may be specified.

May I assume, Sir Charles, for the purpose of discussion, that I may take with this Amendment my next Amendment, in page 5, line 1, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) In preparation for the issue of invitations to tender as required in the immediately preceding subsection the Commission shall forthwith, and with the approval of the Board, as required under subsection (6) hereof, proceed to the creation of transport units over which there shall be distributed (in accordance with a scheme hereinafter called the scheme of distribution) the whole of the vehicles, properties and other assets, rights and obligations whether under contract or otherwise, connected with the existing road haulage undertaking, including the goodwill, in such wise that the total value of the said transport units after the distribution shall not be less than the total sum shown in the balance sheets of the Commission in respect of the existing road haulage undertaking:
Provided however that with the approval of the Minister any specified vehicles, properties or other assets, and the rights, liabilities and obligations pertaining to them may be excluded from this scheme of distribution if it appears to the Commission that they cannot readily be allocated to any of the said transport units.
Each of the said transport units may as convenient be incorporated as a limited company, and pending the disposal of any transport unit or of the whole or part of any shares in such units the Commission shall cause each of the said units or each company owning such units to conduct its road haulage operations in such wise and with such degree of separateness as in the opinion of the Commission will permit of


ready transfer to a purchaser of the aggregate of property, rights and obligations represented in each such unit, or of the shares, in whole or in part, of each company owning such a unit, and will enable such purchaser to engage without delay in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward.
This Clause is, I think, the pivotal Clause of the entire Bill. Much else in the Bill depends on this Clause. For instance, the duty to sell the undertaking of the Road Haulage Executive at the best possible price and with the least possible dislocation depends entirely on this Clause, and that, I think, is the reason we should pay a certain amount of attention to it. There are, I suggest, two ways in which one could proceed.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order. It may have been my fault for not hearing, but may I ask you, Sir Charles, whether we should be in order in discussing with this Amendment not only the other Amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, to page 5, line 1, but also the Amendment proposed in page 6, line 6, to leave out from "and" to "will" in line 13, and to insert:
in particular the Board shall approve the scheme of distribution into transport units and the general terms and conditions of tender, including the basis of reserve prices to be fixed if any; and the Board shall not give their approval to the proposals of the Commission in this regard unless they are satisfied that the prices received will be reasonable having regard to the value to the purchasers of the property and rights which they.
and the Amendment proposed in page 6, line 18, to leave out from "section," to the end of line 21, and, so far as we may under this Clause, the Amendment proposed in Clause 5, page 7, line 40. to leave out subsection (1)?

The Chairman: I agree. I think they are all related.

Mr. Jones: I assumed that I was in order in referring to the other Amendments in discussing this one.
The Clause deals with the manner of disposing of the undertaking of the Road Haulage Executive. There are, I suggest, two possible ways of effecting this disposal. We could, in the first place, proceed by detaching certain blocks of property from the undertaking of the R.H.E. and selling them merely as blocks of property, merely as physical assets. The other way would be to break down

the undertaking into units capable commercially of subsisting on their own; in other words, to break the undertaking down into business units, as distinct from physical assets which the purchaser has to reshape into business units.
I suggest that the disposal of the undertaking should proceed in the main by the second method rather than the first; in other words, by selling business units rather than mere blocks of property. I think, indeed, that that is the intention of my right hon. Friend. At least, the other day my hon. Friend twice used a phrase which seemed to me to imply that his opinion was the same as mine. He referred to the sale of "businesses."
The purpose of the Amendment is to make that intention, if it is indeed the intention, absolutely explicit, and to lay it down as a matter of priority that sale should be primarily by way of business units and only secondarily by way of mere blocks of physical assets. I think it important to clarify the intention for this reason. We shall later on this week be discussing the levy Clauses, and, no doubt, many hon. Members will raise objections to those Clauses. For my part, I do not so much wish to express the conventional objection to them, but what I do dislike about the levy is the connotation it carries with it of loss on sale and dislocation. I do not like that connotation. Nor do I believe that implication to be in the least well founded.
I think these assets have considerable values attaching to them. In the first place, there are the unrestricted A and B licences. In the second place, I think I am right in saying, the replacement value of these assets is higher than the values at which they were taken over, and, therefore, the value is higher than the value at which they stand in the books of the Transport Commission. If I am right on those facts, and then in addition the sale is by way of business units, so that every purchaser will have an entity which is already commercially self-subsistent, and the dispersal of goodwill is minimised, then, I suggest, that on those grounds there need be no loss of goodwill, there need be no loss on the sale.
Not only that. I would suggest further that there need be no revenue loss. I think that later on the levy Clauses provide for the payment of compensation


to the Commission for revenue losses arising from disturbance. I suggest that if the R.H.E. undertaking is divided into business units, and some of those are sold, some retained, there is in fact no disturbance, no uneconomic severance of units from the main body, and there need be no revenue loss.
Lastly, I suggest that the fear of which we heard last week from the opposite benches, the fear of much displacement of labour, is also ill founded provided that the sale is by way of business units. After all, if labour is attached to a unit as defined in my Amendment, it goes with the unit, and the staffs of the Road Haulage Executive need not indulge in a wild scramble for employment.
On those grounds I suggest that, provided the sale is by way of business
units, there need be no call for a levy. The amount liable to be raised by way of a levy would in that case be so infinitesimal as not to be worth the cost of collection. Indeed, if my right hon. Friend were disposed to accept the principles of this Amendment, I would suggest that as a corollary he should also reconsider the retention of the present levy Clauses.
There are one or two other matters to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee. If the sale is by way of business units, I suggest that some of those units should appropriately be large units. I accept that we should attempt to provide vehicles and units for the small man, but not entirely. I would say that there is a future for the large undertaking, for this reason. I think it is true that the large unit achieves certain economies of size, and I think that under the new regime, under denationalisation, the only way of providing the public service or the uneconomic service—for instance, parcel services to the outlying districts—is by way of the large unit.
But if some of the units for sale are to be large, we must have appropriate arrangements in the Bill, and I confess that I do not think they are there. Clause 3 (1) as it now stands provides merely for the sale of assets. In other words, my right hon. Friend has to look for the sale of all the assets comprised in a transport unit either to the small man or to a company already in existence or

a company specially formed outside, and he would have to sell the entirety of the assets in that unit.
By my Amendment I give him the option if he wishes to take it—there is no obligation—of proceeding by a different method. Instead of waiting for the formation from outside of a company, he can proceed himself to the formation of a company and he can sell off some of the shares of that company as the market conditions warrant. I suggest that if he does that, he gives himself an extra weapon and an extra discretionary power the result of which in the end will be to facilitate the finance of denationalisation.
I admit that my understanding of this Clause may be wrong; I confess I find it a difficult Clause to understand, but the intention as I understand it is something like this. The Transport Commission determines to sell a block of property. The Commission goes to the Board to consult on the terms of tender. Another block comes up. Once again there is consultation with the Board—backwards and forwards, and detail after detail. I think that is a feasible enough method for, shall we say, the secondary services now provided by the Road Haulage Executive, but I confess I do not think it a proper method of dealing with the principal services of the Road Haulage Executive—the trunk services.
The proper method of dealing with the trunk services is for the Commission and the Board to get together in the first instance in advance, and agree on the division of this undertaking into business units. No doubt, my right hon. Friend will tell me that this implies delay, but even if the initial sale is retarded as against the adoption of the ad hoc method, the completion of the sale will be expedited; there will be no dislocation and the sale will be undertaken on much more remunerative terms.
3.45 p.m.
I apologise if I have detained the Committee overlong. I have done so because, quite honestly, I think this is a most important but at the same time difficult matter. There is only one other comment that I would make. Last week in the one day's discussion that we had in Committee, and indeed in the Second Reading debate, there re-appeared time after time


from the benches opposite the threat of re-nationalisation. May I remind hon. Members opposite that they are not the arbiters of whether or not there will be re-nationalisation.
The arbiters of that very difficult question will be the moderate opinion of this country, and I suggest that that moderate opinion will be influenced in the main by the manner in which this sale is effected. Relative to that consideration, too, is the fact that I think it a good Conservative doctrine that in any evolution each succeeding stage should fit in harmoniously with the preceding stage. I think that would be effected by this Amendment.
May I add that this Amendment has been drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) and myself, and we shall be the first to admit that we are amateurs at draftsmanship. I do not insist on the wording. I do not want to obtrude this amateurish drafting on the Committee, but I trust that my right hon. Friend will give sympathetic attention to the principles which we have tried to incorporate in this Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: I want to make it perfectly clear that I, like every other Member of the Committee, am bound to accept the major decision on Second Reading. While I strongly object to the disposal of the road haulage undertaking of the Commission, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) that the narrow point is exceedingly important from a number of points of view.
First of all, I agree with him that we want to make the transition an easy one from the present state of affairs to whatever the next state of affairs may be. I can assure him that the desire to avoid unnecessary bumps is not peculiar to the Conservative Party. We are concerned to see that the highest possible price is obtained for the aggregate of the road haulage undertaking, and therefore we are bound to consider what method is likely to have the best result in that respect and not to be led astray by any notions of our own of an ideological character rather than of a practical business nature.
I also agree that the method of disposal proposed in the Bill is open to quite serious objection. I shall deal with that in a minute, but it is for those broad

reasons that I support this Amendment. In doing so, I wish to say that in supporting an Amendment of this character I do not feel bound to accept every single word in it. For instance, I notice a reference in a subsequent Amendment to the words "reserve prices if any." If I had had to do the drafting, I should have left out the words "if any," because I cannot imagine that it would be good business or, indeed, good sense to try to dispose in any way whatever of this very valuable property without having some sort of reserve price on it—perhaps the more so because it has been the subject of acute political controversy.
Agreeing, as I do, that the manner of the disposal is extremely important, I cordially support the hon. Member's remark that the sensible way of doing it is not by trying to attach a number of rights and obligations to specific lorries, but by looking at the process in the way in which the prospective buyer would look at it. What he wants to buy is a running concern. Therefore, on that point I agree with the hon. Member that the language of the Bill makes it a question of disposing of lorries, or whatever it may be, with something that may or may not be attached to them, and that it is more sensible to try to make it an operation of disposing of an undertaking, or it may be of shares, in the form in which a purchaser would actually consider what was put before him. I believe that to be a major point.
Next, I agree with what he said about goodwill. I do not think that any of us can say for certain what value ought to be attached to the goodwill of these units now. The Amendment recognises its existence, and I think that the right way to treat it is to include the goodwill with each of the units that is being disposed of.
Then I attach the greatest importance to the fact that in the second Amendment we have to consider that the Commission have to prepare a scheme of disposal for
… the whole of the vehicles, properties and other assets, rights and obligations, … including the goodwill.
I believe that is the right way to do it —to take what we are going to sell, to divide it into saleable units and to see that these saleable units cover the whole of it, leaving to ourselves, as the Amendment, like the Bill, leaves, a loophole in


case we cannot do the whole of it in that way.
The Bill, I think, proceeds in rather the opposite way. It proceeds to take the whole of what is to be sold and then to knock off bits of it, and to hope that too much will not be left at the end. I think that the Amendment provides a more sensible method, and that if a large commercial undertaking not of a public character were selling a similar group of property, that is the way in which it would try to do it, and that is the way in which the purchaser would try to buy it. On that account, too, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member.
Another very sensible provision is, I think, contained in lines 7 to 9 in the Amendment to page 5, line 1,
… that the total value of the said transport units after the distribution shall not be less than the total sum shown in the balance sheets of the Commission in respect of the existing road haulage undertaking.
I understand that to mean—and I hope that the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—that the total value shown in the Commission's books has to be divided out among these transport units, and each will carry a valuation, as it were, of part of that total. That, of course, will be the value which it is sought to reach. I do not say that it will necessarily be the reserve price. It will be the value which it is sought to reach in disposing of the undertaking. All I can say on that, as on the other parts of the proposed Amendment—is that it seems to me to be a sensible way of doing it, and the way in which a large concern would set about a disposal of this sort; and, perhaps most important of all, it is the kind of method—I am referring to the valuation—which would appeal to the purchaser.
There are other points, but I think that that is the main distinction between what is proposed by these Amendments and what is proposed in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Hall Green will not in any way be upset or disturbed by getting support from a quarter which in the first instance he may not altogether have expected. I can only say that I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee do not abate one little bit our objection to the whole scheme. We do not take every single syllable of this Amendment and say that we would

have put it in that way; but we do say that, given the principle of the thing, which has been accepted on Second Reading, this is much the better way of dealing with this particular matter than the way proposed in the Bill.
It is, therefore, not for party reasons, but simply because it is a more sensible way, and one which is more likely to result in that economy to the public purse to which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, particularly right hon. and hon. Members opposite, profess their profound attachment, that we see no reason why the results of this sale should prove less successful because another method is adopted instead of the one which we believe to be the wrong method.
I could say more in support of the hon. Member's Amendment, but we are limited by the Guillotine, and I am sure that there will be many other hon. Members who want to speak on it. I have given, I hope sufficiently, my broad reasons for feeling that it is right in principle that the new subsection (2) which the hon. Member proposes to insert by his Amendment in page 5, line 1—is particularly right, and I am glad to support it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am very reluctant to get into a discussion on the details of the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) has moved in so agreeable and cogent terms, and for which, I think, there is a considerable case. As I see it, one of the virtues of this Bill is that it does not attempt to give too much detailed instruction to businessmen as to how they are to carry out their designs in this new world of freer transport into which we are moving.
I should be very reluctant to see words put into the Bill which would appear to give instructions to an important board, or to the Commission itself, as to precisely how they are to carry out their work. I should not be a bit surprised if, when this Board is set up, and proceeds to lay down a general set of principles, it does not do in many ways almost exactly what my hon. Friend has suggested; but I should be reluctant to see these precise instructions included in an Act of Parliament. I must confess that the first Amendment in page 4, to leave


out lines 40 and 41 and to insert paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) does enlarge upon the generality of my right hon. Friend's instructions to the Commission and the Board under this Clause.
When we come to what my hon. Friend himself said, and his Amendment in page 5, line 1, there does seem to be envisaged, if not instructions, at least a new set-up by Parliament to which the Commission and the Board would have to have regard—that a large number of these units would be incorporated into limited companies. It might be appropriate for some few units, perhaps, on the trunking services to be set up in time, but let us leave that to the people who are buying them. It might be disagreeable to prospective buyers, people who were in the business before nationalisation and who want to come back, to find that the Board and the Commission together are busy forming limited companies of units, which might then present them with a commercial set-up rather frightening to the small people who had their barges, lorries, and so on, in the past.
4.0 p.m.
This also introduces a delaying factor, because it is obviously much quicker to get the Board and the Commission to parcel up these units, and get them ready in appropriate sizes for sale, than to carry on through the whole commercial procedure of forming companies. I do not want to go into this in too great detail, but I, personally, am satisfied with the broad provisions of Clause 3, and I think that it would be a pity if we were to devise anything else. Nor do I think my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that there is a greater fear of disturbance arising out of the present scheme than if he were successfully to introduce this new proposal.

Mr. Mitchison: The noble Lord will no doubt have noticed that the power to form companies to take over transport units is purely discretionary. Has he any objection to the Commission having such a power? That is all there is to it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Commission will have power to form companies for their own services, but I think that it might delay the process of sale if they were to spend a lot of time, with lawyers, accountants and all the rest of it, in getting these units formed into

companies and then proceeding to market the shares instead of marketing the vehicles. It is far more difficult for businessmen to find out what they are getting if they are offered only shares in a certain concern rather than being told, "Here are 50 vehicles and a garage. Take them if you want them." I am afraid the delay which may ensue if the Commission decide, as they might well do under this Amendment, to form a lot of these companies, will be too great.
I do not think my hon. Friend is quite right in implying that only under the Amendment would the Board and the Commission get together to plan a comprehensive and worth-while sale of these trunk service units. I am certain that will happen just as well under the provisions of the Bill as devised.

Mr. David Jones: First of all, I should like to correct the figure of £5 million, which I used in an interjection last Thursday. The figure should be £2½ million per annum.
When I first saw this Amendment, in spite of the fact that a namesake of mine had his name to it, I viewed it with some apprehension, but on further examination it seems to me that the Amendment will do at least one thing. I take back no opposition I have made to the Bill. I believe the Bill is wrong, but as it has received its Second Reading and we are to go ahead with the Bill, it is our job to make it as workable as possible. If the Bill is not to create tremendous discontent in the minds of the workers in the industry, there must be some indication that they have a reasonable prospect of being re-employed by the new owners of these vehicles.
In my judgment, this Amendment and the others associated with it will not only enable the Commission and the Board to create that measure of satisfaction—not complete satisfaction, because I am quite sure that thousands of workers in this industry would not desire to be employed by anybody other than the Road Haulage Executive—but, if the vehicles they man are transferred to other owners, this orderly disposal of the vehicles will make for a greater degree of contentment in the minds of the staff than if it were left as the Bill stands.
The Bill as drafted merely arranges for a series of bargain sales to be held


throughout the country. Anybody who has been to an auction sale knows that those who go early frequently pick out the best lots in the first few hours of the sale and leave the worst lots to be taken up by the latecomers. In that way, the trunking services which have been established all over the country are likely to be broken up.
The withdrawal of the trunking services between most of the big towns must create consternation in the minds of the small traders who rely upon these services to convey their goods from one part of the country to another. On the main trunk roads on any night, between 10 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock in the morning, hundreds of lorries pass between most of the principal towns conveying, in the main, merchandise of the small businessmen. After all, the bulk of our manufacturing products are produced by small businessmen; they rely upon these services, and if the services are withdrawn they will be in danger of frustration because the transport avenues upon which they have been relying will no longer exist.
This Amendment will enable those trunk services to remain in existence. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, the power to create companies is merely permissive, but in certain instances it may render the transfer to private hands more easy than would otherwise be the case.
A much stronger case than that can be made out for this Amendment, because the levy envisaged in later Clauses is distasteful to all sections of the community; nobody likes the levy. The British Road Federation has recently circularised every Member of Parliament with very cogent reasons why this levy should not be imposed. I will not weary the Committee by reading them; I am sure that most hon. Members interested have read them.
This Amendment makes provision for the recovery by the British Transport Commission of the goodwill which rests in this fleet of vehicles. I remind the Committee that the fact that the purchasers of these vehicles are to have virtually unrestricted A licences for five years makes these lots considerably more valuable than otherwise.
For all those reasons, I think this Amendment should be supported. I believe that it makes the best of a bad job. I would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to concern himself with other and more important aspects of the transport problem than to bother with this. But if he insists on putting these vehicles at the disposal of private companies, the orderly way here proposed is far better than the one envisaged in the Bill.

Mr. J. Grimond: I can appreciate, like the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), that there is danger in trying to give too detailed instructions to the Commission and the Board, but I differ from him in thinking that this Amendment tries to do that. I understand from the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) that he and his hon. Friends are not in the least wedded to the wording of the Amendments but seek to give to the Board a general direction as to its methods of sale. I feel that this is important. It seems to me a vital point that the Board should try to sell what have been referred to as "business units" rather than individual physical assets, though it may take a long time to do that. It should take its time in making every effort in the first place to sell the undertakings as going concerns, even if eventually it has to sell the residue piecemeal.
I feel that should be so primarily for two reasons which have been mentioned already. First of all, there is the widespread apprehension in case these transactions involve a heavy loss to the country, and I feel that this Amendment does something to minimise that. Secondly, fears have been expressed that certain undertakings, particularly in remote areas where they are not too remunerative, may not be sold, and what may happen is that individual vehicles run by these undertakings may be bought up by people in other places and moved away. I know the Minister is aware of the danger and has promised to watch it, but this Amendment gives an added assurance on that point. I do not know how serious the danger is, but it is felt fairly widely, though it may be wrongly. However, from that point of view also this Amendment is worthy of serious consideration.
Further, I am very much interested in the new paragraph (b) of the Amendment


where it is suggested that limited companies might be formed. There are some cases in which the men who run transport undertakings before nationalisation have not yet been paid the compensation due to them, and, therefore, they are in some difficulty about buying back their undertakings if they wish to do so. I do not know whether this is a move to help them. but it might be.
There is no direction to the Board about the form of the company to be set up and, if so inclined, they might say, "We appreciate your difficulty in raising capital. We will divide the share capital into different categories and raise most of the necessary amount by fixed interest securities. We will leave in your hands the controlling interest through the ordinary shares, and, in due course, you may be able to buy out the debenture or preference holders as the case might be." I do not know whether that was in the minds of the hon. Members who are sponsoring this Amendment, but I am glad to see that there is a discretion here, and I believe that this Amendment would be useful from this and other points of view.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): In view of the other important Amendments to Clause 3, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I revealed the attitude of the Government towards the group of Amendments now under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey), my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) are anxious to deal with the arrangements for the disposal of the Commissions Road Haulage undertakings. There is no difference in the objective of the Government and that of these hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is anxious to break up this monopoly, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering has told us quite frankly that, although he is against the breaking up of the monopoly, if it is to be broken up, he would prefer this method to that in the Bill. It was on this ground that he lent his support to the Amendment. The Amendment in

page 5, line 1, which we are taking with the one which has been moved, provides for a method of disposal based upon the scheme of distribution which has been set out with very great diligence and in a most painstaking fashion by my hon. Friends.
This scheme of distribution, which is to he prepared and approved before invitations to tender are issued, if the Amendment is carried, requires that the whole of the vehicles, properties and other assets, rights and obligations, including good will, shall be split up into transport units. Values shall be placed on those units which in the aggregate shall not be less than the total sum shown in the balance sheets of the Commission in respect of the existing road haulage undertaking. Provision is also made for any specified vehicles to be excluded from this scheme of distribution if the Commission consider that they cannot readily be allocated to any of the transport units and if the Minister concurs in that opinion.
I realise, as does my right hon. Friend, that these Amendments are wholly benevolent in their intention and that the objects are quite evidently to ensure that disposal will take place in an orderly manner with less risk of disturbance to trade and industry and to minimise any capital loss on disposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green made that quite clear in moving his Amendment, and there was support on the benches opposite for that view.
4.15 p.m.
I fear that in neither respect do we consider that this scheme will have any material advantages over proposals already in the Bill, while in other respects it is certain there will be serious disadvantages. For one thing, the scheme will involve delay. The formulation and approval of a detailed scheme of distribution covering the whole of the Commission's road haulage undertaking, and the incorporation of companies, where so decided, would be a lengthy process and no disposals could occur until this had been completed and the re-grouping had actually taken place. It is, therefore, our view that it is in the general interests that the Commission's road haulage undertaking should be transferred to private enterprise as quickly as is reasonably practical.

Mr. John Hynd: And at all costs.

Mr. Braithwaite: The words in the Clause already cover that and have been incorporated. Also while there might be some reduction in the risk of disturbance to trade and industry, there is no real reason to anticipate that the proposals in the Bill as it stands will mean any serious disturbance. Under this scheme there will be some disturbance which may be considerable while the road transport undertaking is being regrouped, and this must affect the whole organisational and operational set-up of the Road Haulage Executive.
There is likely to be a further disturbance when the units are sold because there is always the possibility that a buyer will decide to leave the work the unit has been doing for something else of which he has closer personal knowledge and in which he has long-standing contacts. I dare say that the point put to the Committee a short time ago by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools about trunking services was in hon. Members' minds. There is no reason to suppose that under this system the trunking services will disappear. They existed in large and efficient units prior to nationalisation, and we have no reason to feel that that state of affairs will not re-occur.
Again, although the Amendments do not specifically so provide, it seems quite clear that the intention is that a considerable number, at least, of the units are to be formed into limited companies before they are sold, a suggestion which attracted the approval of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). In so far as this happens, it will be more difficult to readjust any units to suit prospective purchasers. It will also involve considerable work and expense, much of which may in the end prove abortive for at least two reasons.
First, it is anticipated that many buyers will be existing hauliers who will wish to expand their businesses and will wish to merge the additional assets with their existing undertaking. They will, therefore, have the trouble of liquidating the newly-formed company. Second, many would-be purchasers of a very small unit will not wish to operate it as a company with the obligations and limitations which are involved in that process.
Lastly, although values are to be attached to the units to an aggregate of not less than the total sum, including the goodwill, shown in the Commission's balance sheets, there is no reason to assume that they will be sold at that figure or that they will fetch any more than units sold under the proposals in the Bill. Whatever nominal value might be attached to a unit or to the shares of one of these companies, the fact remains that the buyer will pay no more than he considers the undertaking will be worth to him, exactly as he would in tendering for a transport unit under the existing proposals in the Bill.
While I appreciate the motives of my hon. Friend, for these reasons I must say that we regret that we are unable to accept this series of Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he has not dealt with the very interesting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) that it might be possible as a result of a sale in this way to get rid of the levy, to which, for various reasons, so many people from so many quarters object violently.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: As to the point about not wishing to include the Amendment in the Bill, is it not possible that the Board itself might well follow the line indicated in the Amendment when it comes to this matter?

Mr. Braithwaite: The point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering is a simple one. I apologise if I did not deal with it in detail but I was trying to get on. The better the prices, the less the levy will be. We do not believe that the machinery suggested in the Amendment will necessarily obtain that better price.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. There may or may not be some goodwill. It is very difficult to judge now. The proposal in the Amendment is to sell the corporeal and the incorporeal assets, including the goodwill. Why say that there is nothing to sell, when, after all, we may be able to get a price for it and thereby get rid of the transport levy?

Mr. Braithwaite: We are running a little ahead here. The levy has other


objectives. There are the objectives of compensation and the £1 million for disturbance. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls), he knows that there is complete discretion in this matter. We do not think it necessary to write such words into the Bill.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I join with the Parliamentary Secretary on the point that it was right that he should rise at this juncture. We are working under a Guillotine, and it is a difficult life. It is the duty of both sides to economise in time as best we can, although we feel very fierce about the Guillotine and the inevitable way in which it works.
I hope the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) will not take comfort from what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, that the Disposal Board has complete discretion. If he looks at the two lines which are proposed to be left out of Clause 3, he will see that there is a direction that the Board is to sell:
…one or more specified motor vehicles; and … such other property, if any, as may be specified …
which does not seem to me to provide the orderly sale which he evidently has in mind.

Mr. Nicholls: It is discretion down to two vehicles.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think discretion down to two vehicles would meet the point of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones).
We have tried to examine the Amendments on the grounds of public interest, from whatever quarter they come. We have put down a great many Amendments ourselves, and if Amendments put down by hon. Members opposite appear to us to be sensible and in the public interest, we shall not be so prejudiced that we shall oppose them merely because they come from the other side. This Amendment is one which we believe to be right and in the public interest and, therefore, we think it should be approved.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that one of the objections to the Amendment is that it will mean delay. There is something in that. Delay may
be involved in settling this matter by disposing of

the assets in a more orderly manner than otherwise. It usually takes a little more time to settle things in an orderly manner than it does if they are settled in a chaotic manner. However, surely the Government are not in such a mood that they are bursting to get rid of these public assets in so furious a hurry that they cannot pause to consider the best way to do it. It would be ridiculous for the Government to take the line that we must rush at this and do it in a most furiously rapid way irrespective of the public interest. I cannot believe that the limited amount of delay which may be involved is necessarily fatal.
The Parliamentary Secretary also argues that it is objectionable to do anything which will prevent the sale of these undertakings in small units or small parcels. What are we aiming at? I hope we are seeking to provide a comprehensive, useful, co-ordinated transport service, whether it be conducted by private enterprise or public enterprise. We believe it is more likely to be provided by public enterprise; hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree with that view, but that is our view.
However, even if hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government take the view that the public interest is best served by private enterprise—that is what they say; let us hope they believe it, but I am not sure about it—surely they have to take into account that, if these assets are to be transferred from public authority to private ownership and private enterprise, it should be done in a way in which the public interest is most likely to be served. That seems to be the motive of the hon. Member for Hall Green.
I do not know in whose brain the Amendment originated. I assume that it was the hon. Member's brain. But it so happens that it fits in with the arguments which were advanced by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. The Association was most worried about the transfer from public ownership to private ownership. Nobody would accuse the Association of being an enthusiast for public ownership. Certainly, I am under no illusion in that respect. In principle, no doubt, the Association prefers private ownership as a general proposition. Nevertheless, what worried the Association was that the method of the Bill was likely to be too hurried, too chaotic and


too accidental, and it believed that the Government should think out some more orderly and more systematic method of transition from public to private ownership. As far as I can see, that is the motive of the hon. Member for Hall Green.
I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that in its memorandum the Association said that the vital interest of users could be seriously impaired if the existing network of services, both local and national, were disbanded or disrupted and that the continuity of an adequate service for industry and commerce was imperative.
4.30 p.m.
That is a sensible point. Whether we believe in public ownership or private ownership, it is important that the best public service should be given. Yet, under lines 40 and 41 of Clause 3, all the Disposal Board and the Commission are instructed to do is to invite tenders for the purchase on specific conditions of (a) one or more specified motor vehicles; (b) such other property, if any, as may be specified.
The danger of that method is that it is purely fortuitous as to who is to tender and who is to buy in accordance with the tenders that are put in. The net result of this procedure not only may well be but, as far as I can see, probably will be that we shall have an accidental series of transport units or undertakings, at any rate for the time being, and the probability is that these units will be incapable of giving anything in the nature of a co-ordinated or organised public service.
Surely that cannot be in the public interest. It may well be that in the course of five or 10 years there will evolve amalgamations, mergers, quasi-monopolies, semi-trusts. That will put the thing either right or wrong, from the point of view of those who believe in private enterprise. That may happen, but under this Bill it is highly probable that the net result will be a breakdown from a network of public services referred to by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to an utterly chaotic situation, a series of small, competing and difficult undertakings.
Although this Amendment comes from the other side, we have tried to judge it on objective and fair considerations, it being understood that we are utterly opposed to the entire Bill and to the Clause and that therefore we cannot be 100 per cent. admirers of the Amendment. We think, however, that it improves the Clause, that it is better than the proposal of the Government, and that it seeks to provide that the transfer from public ownership to private ownership should be made in the most orderly manner in order to produce the most orderly units that are most likely to produce an orderly system of road commercial transport.
If the Amendment is carried, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will succeed entirely in those objects, but that is his motive. At any rate there is a better chance of success under his Amendment, which has been supported by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) than would otherwise be the case.
There is another aspect of this series of Amendments which is also important. The hon. Gentleman is trying to secure that the price paid for these assets shall be a fair commercial price, including goodwill. What is wrong with that? Surely the Government will not say in crude language that they want these units to be sold at a knock-out price to private enterprise, or will they? Surely they will not frankly admit that these public assets, which have been bought on the basis not merely of physical valuation but of an element of goodwill as well, should be sold at a knock-out price which has no relationship to goodwill, or will they.
If they do, then indeed they are confessing that this Bill is a conspiracy against the public interest. By arguing that in the sale price they should endeavour to get the best possible price, including a reasonable element for goodwill, the hon. Gentleman is doing two things. First, he is trying to get the most proper price he can get for these assets to be sold from public authority to private enterprise. Secondly, if he succeeds in that, he is partially solving the problem of the levy, which I hope the Government realise nobody loves—

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): indicated assent.

Mr. Morrison: I see that the Minister agrees with me about that. I do not love it, evidently he does not, and the interests outside do not love it. Under the Amendment, in so far as it seeks to get a fair price for the assets, including goodwill, it may be possible for him to reconsider the extent of the levy and that in itself is surely a good thing also. Did the noble Lord want to say something?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I was remarking on what the right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago, that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends would work up a tremendous case in the country if the levy was not there.

Mr. Morrison: The part the noble Lord is playing in this Bill fills me with understanding as well as admiration, but he must face the fact that we shall vote against the levy. We are opposed to that levy. Therefore, if it is unpopular, will the noble Lord, who is the Chairman of the Tory Transport Committee and who is now working his passage back to the local association of the Conservative Party, vote with us against the levy? Or will he vote for this new tax upon road commercial transport? However, the case will come up and it would not be in order for me to pursue that question, Sir Charles. The last thing I want to do is to be out of order.
In moving the Amendment and seeking to get what I might call a fairer price for this public property, the hon. Gentleman is tending to ease the problem of the levy which the Minister and I agree is objectionable and which we would like to get rid of if we could. Therefore, in all those circumstances, despite the fact that this Amendment comes from the other side, we are driven to the conclusion that it is an improvement on the Bill. We recommend the Committee to approve of it and we hope that the Government may think again about it.

Mr. Ian Harvey: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) I want to confirm that this Amendment springs from the brain of my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) and from no other source. I am particularly happy to be able to associate myself with it. In reply

to the observations made by our supporter, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), we are happy that the principle that the detailed administration of this Bill should be removed as far as possible from party controversy, is accepted on all sides. I was a little afraid for a moment, however, when the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) suggested that he would oppose our Amendment—

Mr. Mitchison: I am sure that was a slip of the tongue because the hon. Gentleman must not assume that we accept the principle of the Bill. We think—but I had better stop, Sir Charles, or I shall get out of order.

Mr. Harvey: I never suggested that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the principle, but that he accepted that we should reach agreement on the methods When my noble Friend came out against the Amendment, I thought we were in danger of being orthodox, but the Parliamentary Secretary has set our minds at rest about that. My hon. Friend and I are a little sorry that our Amendment should have received less attention from the Parliamentary Secretary than it received from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South.
I would re-affirm that in this Amendment we have been guided by three principles—first, that this proposition should be more businesslike secondly, that we should concern ourselves with a service and not with individual units of transport; and thirdly, that we should pay some attention to the principle upon which our party has operated for some considerable time—namely, evolution. I remind by noble Friend that we do not seek to direct but that we are concerned with a situation in which we find an industry nationalised. Having found it in that state, we must take the necessary and practical steps to return it to conditions under which we believe it would more profitably and effectively operate. That is why we think more detailed instructions are required than are involved in the Bill.
We are bound to conform to the attitude of benevolence which my hon. Friend saw behind the Amendment; and because we are benevolent, we are bound to accept the indication from him that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister


have already considered this question in detail. I therefore hope very much that they will look at the matter again. At the same time, I know that my hon. Friend, as well as myself, would not wish to press the matter further.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. If that was an application, or preceded an application, to withdraw the Amendment, will it not require the consent of the Committee? I assume that other hon. Members who have their names to the Amendment, for good and sufficient reasons, will, if they wish, be allowed to continue.

The Chairman: The hon. Member can, of course, ask permission to withdraw the Amendment, but if anyone takes exception, we shall continue the discussion.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I have been gratified and even flattered by the support I have received from the benches opposite for this Amendment. I confess, too, that I have not been displeased by the disagreement of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)-he a Whig, and I think an anarchist, and I a high Tory and a planner.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) I should like to say that this Amendment was not in any way inspired by the point of view expressed by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. I was aware of their opinon, and I confess that in my judgment their scheme was unduly cumbersome and far too complicated. I suggest that we were moving on parallel lines.
Referring to the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I express
one

regret? He devoted his remarks to one-half of my Amendment and, as far as I can judge, he disregarded the other half, which would empower the British Transport Commission to set up companies of their own before sale. I must say that I do not think that disregard is in the interests of the Government in this matter. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) rightly divined what I have in mind. If the assets included in the transport unit cannot be sold in toto, the Transport Commission would have an option, under the Amendment, to create a limited liability company and to sell the equity, the State still holding the fixed interest stock.

That part of my Amendment was designed not to impede or delay the operation of the Bill, as was suggested by the noble Lord, but in fact was intended to expedite the return to private enterprise. I trust that hon. Members opposite were fully aware of that fact in expressing their support for the amendment. The main argument of the Parliamentary Secretary was that my intention would be fully achieved by the Clause as it stands. Granted that I have elicited from him that expression of intention and granted the defects of draftsmanship which have been pointed out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman: Is it the Committee's pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 247.

Division No. 33.]
AYES
(4.45 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bullock, Capt. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Birch, Nigel
Burden, F. F. A.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bishop, F. P.
Butcher, H. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Black, C. W.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden).


Arbuthnot, John
Boothby, R. J. G.
Campbell, Sir David


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bossom, A. C.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Baldock, Lt: Cmdr. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cary, Sir Robert


Baldwin, A. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Banks, Col. C.
Braise, B. R.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Barber, Anthony
Braithwaite, Lt-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Baxter, A. B.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cole, Norman


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Brooman-White, R. C.
Colegate, W. A.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Bullard, D. G.
Cooper-Key, E. M.




Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Profumo, J. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Kaberry, D.
Raikes, H. V.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rayner, Brig, R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Redmayne, M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, D. L. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robson-Brown, W.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Leather, E. H. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, G. B
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Russell, R. S.


Duthie, W. S.
Lindsay, Martin
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fell, A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Cot. W. (Rochdale)


Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Scott, R. Donald


Fisher, Nigel
Low, A. R. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Shepherd, William


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fort, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Foster, John
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McAdden, S. J.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCallum, Major D.
Snadden, W. McN.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Soames, Capt. C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gammans, L. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Speir, R. M.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McKibbin, A. J.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Godber, J. B.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stevens, G. P.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Storey, S.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marples, A. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Summers, G. S.


Harden, J. R. E.
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, H.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maudling, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, W.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mellor, Sir John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Molson, A. H. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hay, John
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Tilney, John


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Heald, Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Heath, Edward
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turton, R. H.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholls, Harmar
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Vosper, D. F.


Hinohingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent. G. R. H.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nutting, Anthony
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hollis, M. C.
Oakshott, H. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, P. R. H (Antrim, N.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Osborne, C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.
Wills, G.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
York, C.


Hutchison, James (Scotst[...]un)
Peyton, J. W. W.



Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Mr. Studholme and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.


Albu, A. H.
Awbery, S. S.
Bartley, P.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Baird, J.
Bence, C. R.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Balfour, A.
Benn, Wedgwood







Benson, G.
Hargreaves, A.
Parker, J.


Beswick, F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paton, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Healey, Denis (Leads, S.E.)
Pearl, T. F.


Blackburn, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blenkinsop, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G.


Boardman, H.
Holman, P.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Holt, A. F.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hubbard, T. F.
Reeves, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William (Camlashie)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Royle, C.


Chapman, W. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Short, E. W.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kenyon, C.
Snow, J. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daines, P.
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kinley, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Donnelly, D. L.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McInnes, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomney, F.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Usborne, H. C.


Ewart, R.
Manuel, A. C.
Viant, S. P.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Wade, D. W.


Field, W. J.
Messer, F.
Wallace, H. W.


Fienburgh, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, T. E.


Finch, H. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Monslow, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Foot, M. M.
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Forman, J. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morley, R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wigg, George


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mort, D. L.
Willey, F. T.


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Glanville, James
Motley, F. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gooch, E. G.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Nally, W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Grey, C. F.
Oldfield, W. H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Orbach, M.
Wyatt, W. L.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.
Yates, V. F.


Grimond, J.
Padley, W. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paget, R. T.



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)



Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, W. W.
Pannell, Charles
Mr. Wilkins and


Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Hannan.

The Chairman: The next Amendment is to line 46 in the name of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if it is taken with the Amendments to page 5, line 4, after the first "to," to insert:
maintain existing facilities for the carriage of goods by road, disturb the national transport system as little as may be and.",
in line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that unless the Commission with the approval of the Minister otherwise direct the sale of any transport unit shall take effect as from the same date as the sale of other transport units relating to vehicles or other property hitherto operating from or connected with the same base or centre and shall be conditional upon the sale of all such other transport units relating to that base or centre,
in line 12, after "securing," to insert:
the maintenance of existing facilities and the promotion of an efficient national transport system and subject thereto.",
and, in line 33, after "provisions," to insert:
and upon such routes or within such areas as the licensing authority after having regard to the need to maintain existing facilities and to disturb the national transport system as little as may be shall specify.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, in page 4, line 46, at the end, to insert:
and may further include a condition that the purchaser will during such period from the date of the purchase as may be specified provide such services as may be specified for the carriage of goods for hire or reward from a base or centre in the same locality covering substantially the same area and catering for substantially the same traffic as previously served by the vehicles comprised in the transport unit concerned or as the case may be by the vehicles corresponding thereto when such vehicles were last used by or on behalf of the Road Haulage Executive.
I appreciate, Sir Charles, that it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment the other Amendments you have mentioned. They cover the same principle, but we would not have discussed them together were it not that the Guillotine is imposed upon us and it is quite impossible to have a separate discussion on each.
This series of Amendments has one purpose in view: to ensure, as far as practicable, that a comprehensive service shall be maintained and that those persons who take over the units from the Commission shall be obliged to operate those units in the same areas where they

are operating at present and to maintain similar services. We are suggesting this in these Amendments, not because we agree with the sale of the units, but because we consider that if they are sold every possible step should be taken to ensure that as good a national transport service as possible is maintained in the country. It would be quite impossible, in our view, to maintain as satisfactory a service as is being run today under public ownership by British Road Services. It should be appreciated that British Road Services, in effect, run everywhere today. Wherever the transport of goods is required vehicles of the Road Haulage Executive are available to traders and will carry their goods.
They carry the remunerative traffics as well as the unremunerative. They operate in the densely populated areas where it is profitable to operate, and also in the sparsely populated areas where that is unprofitable. They operate in the urban areas and in the rural areas. In a great many cases services are being provided today by British Road Services which were not available before public ownership was instituted.
The trader can pick up a telephone, contact the local office of the Road Haulage Executive, and have vehicles placed at his disposal to carry his goods. Previously, a trader would frequently have to pick up his telephone a number of times before he was able to get either a road haulier to carry his goods, or sufficient hauliers to carry the quantity of goods he required to be moved. His requirements are being met today by a nationally operated service which is providing a regular service and it is operated more economically and efficiently.
When, in reply to the previous Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary implied by his remarks that these directional services were provided by private operators previously, I found it difficult to follow him, because there is no doubt that the directional services which have been instituted by the British Road Services between large centres of population have enabled the balancing of loads to take place with more economic operation and the carrying of larger loads.
5.0 p.m.
British Road Services are operating as near to a common carrier of goods by road as it is possible for road haulage to


operate. They have instituted a national service, providing a service for all who require it. They do not pick and choose their traffics, by refusing those traffics which are unprofitable to carry. In the view of hon. Members on this side of the Committee—and this is the purpose of our Amendments—these facilities cannot be provided by the units envisaged in this Bill which it is proposed to dispose of to private enterprise. But we think that if it were possible to compel the purchasers of these units to carry on, so far as possible, similar services, and to serve the same areas as in the past, then, to a small extent, the disadvantages of the disposal would be mitigated.
We do not think that it is possible to unscramble the national network of services which have been created, because in the process it means that the centralised services which have been set up in connection with the national network of service, the common services, will have to be dissipated. We do not see how a national network can be ensured, without these common services.
During our abbreviated debates last week, the Minister suggested that clearing houses could be set up, or could be continued, and in that way these directional or trunk services could be maintained. But the clearing house system operating before the war has many disadvantages. It means, of course, that there are middle-men touting round for traffic. The small road haulier takes his vehicle round from clearing house to clearing house endeavouring to obtain return loads, and there is a great deal of waste and overlapping.
Worst of all, the middle man is finding the traffics, and those people who are operating the clearing houses do not work for nothing. They are doing this to make a profit out of road haulage, which, in turn, puts up the cost of transport. I cannot see how establishing a clearing house system can in any way be a substitution for the national network of services which have been created.
In these Amendments we suggest it is necessary to require the purchaser to continue the services, and this is essential in the interests of the economy and industry of the country and, of course, of traders generally. We are confirmed in

this belief by the report issued by the Transport Tribunal set up to inquire into the Northern Ireland Transport system. In this Report, particularly in pages 30 to 32, there is full justification for maintaining a publicly-owned service; and also evidence that if a publicly-owned service is broken up certain of the requirements of the trader will not be met.
Let me quote from paragraph 169 which states that the private operators would
call on the Authority to carry their awkward or difficult loads and overloads, and use them when they are short of lorries or drivers, when machines are laid up for repair, or when it suits them to do so for any other reason.
This means, in effect, that the private operator will carry the traffics when it suits him to carry them, and the traffics he refuses to carry would be put on the publicly-owned system. If we dispose of the publicly-owned system as suggested in this Bill, and as the Minister intends to do as quickly as possible, there will be no publicly-owned system to carry the balance of the goods, and, as a consequence, traders will not have the transport facilities at their disposal.
I would also refer the Minister to paragraph 174, which says:
It is very unlikely that any organisation could be found to work the present or any comparable range of services unless they were given the same monopoly as the authority.
That, of course, covers somewhat the same point, that if there is not a single authority covering the whole country, there will be areas which are not served. The next paragraph goes on:
The comprehensive services of the Authority would disappear and with them the non-profitable services which play such a very important role in the development of rural areas.
I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is not in the Chamber, because he referred to this matter last week. He represents a rural constituency, and here is evidence that his constituents may very well not be served adequately as a result of the manner in which the disposal is to take place. There is nothing in this Bill, as at present drafted, which requires that those persons who purchase units of the Road Haulage Executive continue the services now being provided or operate in the same district.
It is quite true that in the First Schedule the licensing authority can refuse an application if
the base or centre could not conveniently serve substantially the same areas.…
That is to say, that if the purchaser of the units says he will not operate from the same centre the licensing authority can refuse his application.
But that does not require him, once he has obtained his licence—and that would be during the period of five years—to operate from that base or centre. Once he has obtained his licence it would be possible for him to shift his base and to operate in a different area. As long as he maintains that centre when he applies for the licence there is nothing to prevent him operating a different type of service from that which he purchased, or for which the vehicles are being used when he makes the purchase, or that he should not serve a different town or area if he does not wish to operate an unremunerative service. He will be free to take his choice of traffics and areas. Once he has his licence he is free to operate precisely as he wishes.
The fifth Amendment in the series which we are now considering, that in line 33, provides that the licensing authority can make it a condition of the issue of the special A licences that he shall continue to operate the same services or serve the same areas.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in the remarks he made when we were discussing the previous Amendment on which we have just divided, stated—if I understood him correctly, and I think I did although I must say that when he reads his brief so meticulously and speedily it is not always easy to follow him—that it was always possible for the purchaser to leave the work the unit was doing and carry on with other work of which he had more personal knowledge. I think that was the gist of the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks. That confirms what I am saying, that once a unit has been sold the purchaser can use those vehicles precisely as he wishes; and that there is no guarantee to the public that they will continue to receive adequate services, once that sale has taken place.
We should like to know who is to provide the transport which private enterprise does not provide after the sale has taken place, because it is unremunerative

to provide such services? Who will provide the transport in the rural areas where it does not pay to provide services today? Who will provide the services in those areas, such as Scotland, where it is quite clear that services can only be covered through the profits made on the more profitable services in the urban areas?
In proposing this series of Amendments, we are not accepting the principle of the sale but we are endeavouring to protect the community as far as possible. We are trying to ensure that adequate services continue to be provided and that those people who benefit from purchasing these vehicles shall have the obligation to carry on a public service. Obviously, they would not purchase them unless they thought that they were going into a good business. If they take a profitable service they must take some of the unprofitable services as well. They must balance one with the other.
The best way in which this position was put I came across in HANSARD recently. It was said by a speaker from the other side:
The provider of transport ought, from the public point of view, to be prepared to take the rough with the smooth, to provide the facilities which are profitable and easy and desirable, and at the same time be prepared to provide the facilities which are less profitable, less desirable and more difficult to manage. The trouble is that unless you have some system where people who provide transport do take the rough with the smooth, you will have everyone taking the smooth and no one prepared to take the rough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1933; Vol. 277, c. 862–3.]
The spokesman for the Government on that occasion was the late Mr. Oliver Stanley, speaking when he was Minister of Transport. It could not be put better than that.
We consider that the persons who will go into road haulage as a result of the sale of these units will not be prepared to take the rough with the smooth. We want to compel them to do so in the public interest. Therefore, I invite the Minister to consider seriously these Amendments and to see whether the public interest would not best be served by accepting them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have suggested that we should consider these Amendments together and, in that way, slightly streamline our procedure within


the limits unavoidably imposed on our discussion. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) on the spirit of his observations. I know that his opposition to this part of the Bill remains as implacable as ever, but I recognise that he is anxious to try, according to the views that he holds, to improve the machinery.
I fully accept the observations made by the late Mr. Oliver Stanley. We shall certainly do what is possible—though there are very strict limits to this—in general guidance in regard to the dividing up of the units, to see that the cream, or the smooth, to take that analogy, is united with the less palatable opportunities, or the rough. But I should be misleading the Committee if I held out any great hope that in that way we could protect the interests which the hon. Gentleman rightly has at heart.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he proposes to do that? That is what we wish to know.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am coming to that. I hope to develop an argument to show that in that, and in a number of other ways, we are fully conscious of the need to see that the more remote and the less remunerative areas are properly served.
I should like straight away to say that it is our view that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government will provide better than any alternative procedure, once the change has been decided on, for the smooth transition from public to private ownership, for the continuity of services during the period of dispersal, for the avoidance as far as possible of dislocation and for the maintenance afterwards of existing and desirable services.
The second Amendment would alter the definition of a transport unit in Clause 3 (2) by adding to that definition the criterion that the properties included in it shall be such as to maintain existing road haulage facilities. That would make it an absolute condition of sale that the vehicles sold should be used to serve substantially the same area and to cater for the same traffic. But, of course, we live in a period of change. The trade pattern is constantly shifting. To attempt to stereotype in an Act of Parliament

anything of that kind would, I think, defeat its very object. But I will come to various ways in which we shall do our best to ensure that areas as a whole are adequately served.
5.15 p.m.
It does not seem to us that to alter the criteria whereby these units shall be divided up is the best way to ensure that difficult or remote areas are properly served. It is not the criteria whereby the units are divided up, but the use to which the units are put when they have been divided up which is the best security for people in remote areas. Clause 1, to which the Committee have already agreed, lays it down as a duty on the Commission that there shall be the least avoidable disturbance. It is our view that there is no need at all for a statutory obligation whereby a haulier has, by statute, to give an adequate service. We are confident that ordinary commercial considerations will in general compel the hauliers to do so.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I should like the Minister to address his mind to the difference between the road haulage sector and the railway sector in their obligations to the public—in other words, the common carrier obligation. If that could be applied to road haulage, then, obviously, all the needs of the public would be met; but the Minister does not propose that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that it would be possible to say, for example, that the Road Haulage Executive accepted absolutely the same rigid interpretation of the obligations of a common carrier as the railways do. I should like to quote from the Report of the British Transport Commission for 1950, page 138. I do not blame them for this in the least. Economic considerations force them to take account of these factors. They say, describing the events of the year:
The development of trunk and regular services continued, with a progressive reduction in empty running. Many new services were introduced where the flows of traffic justified that step.
That is not the language of the common carrier. To attempt to impose on road hauliers—whether the Road Haulage Executive or an individual road haulier—all the obligations of a common carrier would be quite unrealistic.
I come now to the procedure in the Bill whereby we believe that, as far as is humanly possible, we shall ensure that substantially the same areas are properly looked after as those which have had a service up to now. When the purchaser applies for a special A licence he will be asked by the licensing authority from which base he intends normally to operate. This will be done under Clause 3 (4) and under the First Schedule. The licensing authority, with local knowledge, will know whether the base from which the applicant proposes to operate is likely to cover in a service the same area as that which has been receiving a service up to now.
If the applicant says that he proposes to operate from a different base than the old Road Haulage Executive base—which is, after all, only a few years old, and it may well be that the applicant may know just as much about local trade needs as does the Road Haulage Executive—the licensing authority may refuse the special A licence, under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, if he is not satisfied that from this base it is likely that the same area will be conveniently served.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East asked what was to stop the applicant, once he had got his A licence, from deserting the area completely. The same fear was in the mind of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The speed of the Guillotine time-table would not, I hope, make it very improper for us to jump ahead to Clause 8, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at subsection (4), he will see that there is a new procedure designed there.
The Government invoke the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, Section 13 of which lays down a certain procedure for the revocation or suspension of licences. It is our intention—and that intention is shown in Clause 8 (4)—that if, in fact, an applicant has received a licence by making a false statement, or his declared intention was not fulfilled, then it is possible for the licensing authorities to revoke or suspend the licence.
We are very anxious that there should be no distinction between the special A licences and the ordinary A licences, for they are all going to merge in a comparatively short time, and it would obviously be wrong to impose an obligation on special A licence holders which

would be out of line with the general duties of the ordinary A licence people. So the same provision will apply in the future for ordinary A licence applicants when their existing licences run out. There will be this procedure, first of all, that the licensing authority must be satisfied that, from a base suitable for that area, the applicant intends to carry out his transport business, and if, later, he leaves that area, the procedure of Clause 8 (4) can apply.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Would the licensing authority, at the same time, take into consideration whether the applicant is to convey a suitable proportion of what the Minister describes as the "rough" or the unremunerative traffic, or will he be guided in the granting of licences?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that anybody who has had practical experience of this or any other commercial activity will know that most people from time to time do run uneconomic services in order to fit in with their general range of economic services, and to build up or retain the goodwill of their customers, and, by operating an initial system, to build up a service in which an uneconomic service at the start may grow into an economic one later.
The words which I quoted from the Report of the British Transport Commission show that they, like any other private operator have to take account of hard economic facts, and that neither they nor the private operator can disregard the need that their services should yield results in the long run. I do not think there is any reason to feel that there will be any change in regard to the services that may not, initially, be profitable during this smooth transition to private enterprise.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I find it difficult to stretch the meaning of Clause 8 (4) in the way in which the Minister has done, but we will certainly hold him to it, if possible, if the Bill goes through, though I find it very difficult to believe that it will be possible to do that. I wish the Minister would answer the second point, which is that, if they do not carry on in providing the same type of services, which includes the rough with the smooth, but do not serve the same area, even though their base remains the same, what action can either the Minister or the licensing


authority take? If he is to stretch Clause 8 (4) I cannot understand how it can include maintaining the same services.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We certainly could not extend Clause 8 (4) to do that, so that there is a statutory declaration that precisely the same form of traffic for exactly the same area should be provided. We are satisfied that the most that could be asked is that the best type of service should be operated which, in the view of the licensing authority, is likely to enable that area to be covered. As for the hon. Gentleman's fear about unduly stretching Clause 8 (4), I can assure him that, on that matter, I have taken the highest legal advice.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain a point that is a little obscure? Assuming that what he says about being able to ensure that a service can be carried on is correct, will he tell me how he will ensure that any kind of flat rate is carried on in that area? For example, if the organisation takes over his lorries and carries on, taking the rough with the smooth, and that applies to a fiat rate, obviously, that means that the rates will be a little dearer than those of people taking the cream, who, therefore, are not carrying the "rough." How can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that rates for the country traffic will be comparable with those on the main roads?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there has been lately a regrettable increase in rates, but, taking them generally over the last few years, the private road haulier and the Road Haulage Executive have kept fairly well in tune, and it is the general experience that, with the increase in competition which this Bill will bring, a ceiling would be put upon them because of the measure of competition now being introduced.
As I have said, there is real protection in this Clause, and there is, of course, in addition to that, as I would remind the Committee, the fact that the licences run out at the end of five years, and it is a further protection if, in fact, the successful applicant for a licence is shown by a competitor or someone else not to have covered the area on the assumption on

which he was granted the licence. Therefore, it is our view that the provisions in this Bill will do more to ensure a smooth transition, the maintenance of existing services and a generally better system of road haulage to the public than would any of the proposed Amendments. It will give the flexibility that we need in these services.
The Commission are being asked during the period of transition to carry on with their existing Road Haulage Executive over a diminishing field. I recognise that, to ask people to carry on an activity which is, by law, in the fulness of time to be allowed to come to an end is asking a great deal of human nature, but I also recognise that, when the late Government, in 1947, introduced the Transport Bill, in Clause 51 they put upon a large number of private hauliers the duty of carrying on, even though a notice of acquisition had been tendered, and of carrying on their services in that most difficult of all periods between the sending of the notice of acquisition and the actual transfer.
We are asking no more than that in the case of these people. Many of them were small people, and it would have been found very often that credit was not likely to be continuously available when it was already well-known that their life was to be cut short. That being so, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendments.

Mr. S. N. Evans: The Minister has defended these slap-happy ramshackle proposals with great skill, but he has not convinced me, and here I speak with some experience.

Mr. James Callaghan: He has not convinced himself.

Mr. Evans: No, I do not think he has.
The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends will go into the Division Lobby with heavy hearts, feet of lead and with their consciences firmly deposited in the deep freeze.
I suppose I ought to declare an interest. I operate 16 commercial vehicles. I went into this industry after the First World War, and I pay the Railway Executive about £2,000 per month, so that I have a very lively interest. I know a good deal about this industry, and I must say that the Bill's proposals are creating great


alarm among my Black Country constituents. Over the last five years, there has been created in this country a system of trunk and regular service routes which commands the growing admiration and support of 250,000 individual concerns. There is alarm and despondency at the thought that this service will be broken up.
5.30 p.m.
Let me give some small illustrations of what it will mean to the Black Country and to the traffic that is at present moving as a result of these new trunk services. I shall take Staffordshire towns only. The volume of traffic between Dudley and South Wales is nearly 11,000 tons each four weeks; between Walsall and Glasgow it is over 12,000 tons—all the figures I quote are for four-week periods —between Walsall and Liverpool, 6,000 tons, and between Wolverhampton and London, 12,000 tons. Going father north, between Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool it is 9,000 tons, between Stoke-on-Trent and London 6,300 tons, and if we go a bit farther south, to Birmingham, we find that 9,000 tons are shifted between Birmingham and Liverpool and 13,500 tons between Birmingham and London.
These services, I think it can be said, have been built up in scarcely a tick of the clock of time. In five years we have created a regular service of road traffic equal to anything anywhere in the world. There is, of course, no guarantee, despite what the Minister has said, that this service is going to be maintained. I do not know anybody who knows anything about this subject who does not anticipate very considerable dislocation.
I ask the Minister to tell me whether there is anything in this Bill which prevents the Road Haulage Disposal Board selling vehicles to C licence holders.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It seems exceedingly unlikely that a C licence holder will pay the heavy price properly charged for an existing business. It is singularly unlikely that somebody who can buy an ordinary vehicle in the open market and can apply automatically for a C licence would go in for that expensive process instead.

Mr. Evans: I do not agree with that. The fact is that the whole trunk system which has been built up in this country

depends for its economic operation on the big 12–14 ton Diesel engine machines and because these are very scarce there is no doubt at all that people like Bass, Ratcliffe and Gretton, Mitchells and Butlers, or the Cement Marketing Board or Unilevers would be very glad to get hold of machines of this character. There will be no difficulty for the Minister in selling this type of machine which is, of course, the economic unit within the system.
The right hon. Gentleman's problem will be to sell the others. Therefore, I ask him again, is there anything in this Bill which prohibits the Road Haulage Disposal Board from selling these big 12–14 ton Diesel engine machines to C licence holders?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I repeat what I said, and I shall once more draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 8 (4), which virtually throws on the potential purchaser the obligation to carry out the undertaking. It is a complete obligation on him, but not on the licensing authority to revoke the licence if the base is shifted. It is, naturally, an obligation on the man in question to give the right information. If he fails to do that, then he could have his licence suspended or revoked under Clause 8 (4). I repeat that purchasers of units which are businesses must undertake to carry on a transport business, so, quite apart from the fact that very few private firms are likely to pay the heavy prices in order to get the C licence, they would also have to conform to their obligation to carry on as hauliers, which would be very unlikely for firms of that kind.

Mr. Evans: If the Minister says that the Road Haulage Disposal Board is to be prohibited from selling machines to C licence operators such as I have mentioned, then, of course, I accept his assurance, but, as I read the Bill, the Road Haulage Disposal Board could if they so desired sell these machines to C licence holders.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman once more, but I must point out that a C licensee is not allowed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to carry anybody else's goods for hire or reward.

Mr. Evans: He would not want to.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: But anybody who purchases a business purchases also the


obligation to carry other people's goods for hire and reward. Therefore, he cannot be a C licensee. We shall come later to the situation which will develop when all the businesses likely to be sold as businesses will be sold, and when any vehicles sold as chattels could, of course, be bought by C licensees. But at the moment we are dealing with running businesses which no C licence holder is in a legal position to operate.

Mr. Evans: I was not suggesting for a moment that Bass, Ratcliffe and Gretton would want to go into the haulage industry. All I was saying is that such firms find great difficulty in obtaining vehicles of this character, and that they would be very happy to take these 12–14 ton Diesel engine machines off the hands of the Road Haulage Disposal Board tomorrow morning. However, if there is a legal power, then we are satisfied, though it seems to me that when the Minister uses the word "virtual" he retains an escape door for himself, though not necessarily by intent.
I want it made quite clear that these big machines which form the backbone of the trunk services are, in fact, going to be kept for that type of work and will not be sold to brewers, the Cement Marketing Board, Unilevers, or anybody else.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman wants me once more to repeat it I will do so. There is nothing to stop a brewer or any other firm which wishes to enter the haulage business applying to buy a road haulage business. But if they buy a business under these Clauses they are absolutely obliged to carry on that business in that way, as, otherwise, they will find their licence suspended or revoked. But what will happen later, when the bulk of the businesses have been sold and the Board come to sell the vehicles, is that those vehicles will be available for purchase by C licensees for use in their businesses.

Mr. Evans: I do not want to pursue this point to any great length, but I very much doubt whether, in fact, if these people bought these machines and used them in a manner which enabled the Minister to withdraw their licences, the Minister would have any power to refuse them a C licence.

Mr. Callaghan: I was recently approached—I do not know why—by a large firm whose name it would not, perhaps, be fair to give, who have a large number of C licence vehicles. They asked for my view regarding the prospect of their getting a number of vehicles as a transport unit and working them in with their C licence undertaking. It would be very profitable to them for they would then have the opportunity of working in with the carriage of their own goods such part of the road services of other firms as they could conveniently transport. They believe it will be more economical to them than running empty on one part of the journey. But how far such an arrangement would protect the road haulage service in the way we have been discussing it is a little difficult to see.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) reinforces what I have been saying. It is absolutely vital that the Minister and the Government should take every step to see that these services are not disrupted, because the economies that can be effected by rationalisation are only just beginning to show themselves. The Minister sometimes says, in justification for this and other Clauses, that the process of integration has not made much progress. Of course it has not, because the Road Haulage Executive, up to now, have been busy acquiring businesses. How could they rationalise or integrate until they knew precisely what they had in their possession with which to rationalise and integrate?
This Clause fills me with alarm and dismay. The Amendments are very necessary indeed. All that the trader in the Black Country wants is a first-class service at a reasonably competitive price, and all that this Clause promises is the possibility of no service at all. There can be no doubt that it will be left to a publicly-owned body, after the worst has been done, to provide a substantial part of the road transport service of this country. We must be very careful that we are not left with all the junk. As I said earlier, the "big fellows," the 12 and 14 tonners doing about 11 miles to the gallon, are an economic unit. They are to be swallowed up, and the publicly-owned transport system will be left with the small six tonners, doing about 9 miles to the gallon, and the cost of transport will go up enormously.
I do not remember doing anything in this Chamber that gave me more pleasure than supporting this Amendment. This and subsequent Amendments are absolutely vital. When normally intelligent people set out on a new course of action they usually try to estimate the consequences of what they are proposing to do. I see no signs of that in this Clause and it fills me with great alarm. I support the Amendment.

Mr. David Renton: Perhaps I may follow the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) with regard to C licences, because I think that he has raised a very important point about which we should try to clear our minds. In doing so we must remember that, as the hon. Member contends, in a somewhat early stage of development British Road Services have, in fact, placed quite a large number of their vehicles—I do not know how many—under C licences, and they are now out under C hiring doing regular work for customers.
If a depot containing a number of vehicles of British Road Services has a number of vehicles on its strength which are out under C hiring licences, I should have thought that there would be no objection at all to their continuing to remain under C hiring licences. With that one exception, I am a little disposed to agree with what the hon. Member for Wednesbury said. We must be rather careful to see that the number of vehicles which should be available to trade and industry for hire and reward are not added to the considerable number of C-licensed vehicles which are already in the country.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury objected strongly to the Clause, but apparently he has overlooked the fact that the Clause contains the answer to his difficulty, because it states in page 4, line 42, that
…specified conditions may …
be attached to the sale of transport. [HON. MEMBERS:"May."] It quite rightly says "may," because here we are enjoining upon the two public bodies, the Commission and the Disposal Board, certain duties and I think that there should be a limit to the amount of administrative direction that the House of Commons gives to them.
I do not think that by means of the Amendment which has been moved and of other Amendments we ought to enter into a lot of detail which would fetter the discretion of those two bodies in fulfilling their duties. We should define the general principles under which they should act and impose a certain time limit so that they get on with the job. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Wednesbury will be comforted to some extent by the fact that there will be no "feather bedding "with regard to C licences and that the matter can be covered by the Clause.
I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who moved the Amendment. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because I wish to express very strong disagreement with him. I feel that he acted upon the assumption, which, of course, hon. Members so often do, that until we had a nationalised service for transport there was no such thing as an efficient transport system in this country, in the sense that trade and industry were not served. It is a fact, however, that at the time that the Transport Act was passed trade and industry strongly opposed it. They did so because within the licensing system we had a large and flexible, varied and freely available system of transport.
Surely it is not necessary to assume that it would be impossible to restore such a system and even to provide something better. Indeed, I like to think that when this industry is restored to private enterprise, private enterprise will consider and profit from the experience, the mistakes and even the successes of British Road Services. They would be wise to do so. But what we have to consider is not merely the question of whether a particular service is made available to the public. We have to see to what extent the public are benefiting indirectly from it. To my mind, there is no doubt that the indirect benefit which the public have obtained from British Road Services has been really negligible, and from the point of view of tax earning capacity we should be far better off if the industry had remained in private firms.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East gave us what I must call a most exaggerated description of the improvements


made in road haulage services, improvements which apparently the Road Haulage Executive themselves would not agree had been made and do not claim to have made. On page 124 of their Fourth Annual Report the Road Haulage Executive—and I am only giving one of several available quotations—say that they found it was necessary to carry out a measure of re-organisation and that:
The effect of this re-organisation will not be felt until 1952, but it is hoped that as a result the standard of service to users will be increased and operational efficiency and economy greatly improved.
That is a clear admission that there was room for improvement.
As regards the question to which hon. Members opposite have attached great importance in moving this Amendment—the relationship of vehicles to the flow of traffic—this is what the Report says:
One of the outstanding problems arising out of acquisitions, particularly during the later stages of the programme, was that many vehicles were taken over without the corresponding traffic.
One cannot assume in transport, which is essentially a flexible thing, that goodwill and vehicles are permanently bitched to each other. They are not. The Report goes on:
In consequence, the fleet, by the end of the year"—
that was 1951—
was larger than traffic requirements, and during the latter part of 1951 the position was closely examined and measures taken to reduce the fleet to its optimum size.
Later, they say:
An 'ideal fleet'"—
in inverted commas, meaning, I suppose, one in which supply approximates to demand—
has been tentatively planned, but will take some years to achieve, especially in view of the shortage of new vehicles. It will be corrected from time to time in the light of experience.
I suggest that hon. Members opposite should not spoil their case by overstating it.
Our attitude towards this question of the availability of vehicles is this: We say, "Let there be an adequate supply of vehicles within the licensing system and let the customer decide which of the businesses operating those vehicles he will employ."
I should like to refer to my constituency as an example. Nationalisation has brought no improvement. The area is approximately 1,000 square miles. which is about 30 miles by 35 miles. Before nationalisation there was one haulage business of 50 vehicles and several smaller ones. When nationalisation came, the small businesses were either closed completely or were restricted to the 25-mile limit.
The large business was retained and very slightly enlarged. From the point of view of the operators of the large business there was not very much difference, except that in order to carry out the work which had been formerly done by the smaller businesses there was a good deal of empty running which had never been done before.
After the transfer, the large business will go back where it was. Many improvements that have been made in it will no doubt be retained. In addition, there will be some competition. Applications can be made to the licensing authority even if no transport units are formed. Then we shall have some flexibility, less empty running and we hope naturally greater efficiency; and perhaps there will be the effect of competition upon prices.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) will, I hope, forgive me if I do not follow his particular points.
The Minister says that the public are to be protected from loss of service on transfer by the combined effect of Clause 8 and the First Schedule. On this side of the Committee we cannot feel at all satisfied with that assurance. Clause 8 and the First Schedule provide, by and large, in a very indirect way, for operations to continue from an equivalent base, as a consequence of the discretion brought to bear by the licensing authority. They do not offer any method whereby continuance of the service on the previous scale is guaranteed to the public.
Further, the Clause and Schedule do nothing to guarantee that the service will continue to be provided at rates equivalent to those which were formerly available, or that an area will be covered equivalent to that which was covered before nationalisation; or that any service continued upon the old routes


will be so continued for longer than a week, a month, or a few months at the most.
The Minister made an attempt to satisfy this side of the Committee upon what is admitted to be a crucial and important element of the Bill, but he has not been able to do more than to show the existence of a very intricate and unsatisfactory method, which may be very long delayed, to preserve for the public interest a central base of transport services. As for the area covered, the number of vehicles travelling on the routes, and the scale and continuance of the service in point of time, no kind of guarantee is given by the Minister at all. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
When the Committee stage started, we believed that the Minister would be ready and willing to consider Amendments in a sympathetic frame of mind, but there is no sign of his doing so. There is nothing in the Amendment which is in the very least out of spirit with the general purposes of the Bill. It does not require the purchaser to employ the vehicles he has purchased from the Commission to provide the service—it would have been reasonable to make that requirement, but we did not do it, and that was a concession to the views of hon. Gentlemen who support the Government —as long as he provides a service equivalent to that which was available before the transfer of the assets.
We are asking for something entirely reasonable in this, something which does not interfere or cause dislocation or trouble for the kind of private enterprise transport system the Minister intends to establish under the Bill. We therefore ask from the right hon. Gentleman more responsible and considered reasons against propositions of this character put to him from this side of the Committee.
The Committee will not overlook the fact, and neither will the Minister, that at least three-quarters of the vehicles belonging to the Road Haulage Executive are used on the trunk routes of the country. It is getting increasingly home to trade and industry that the vehicles on those routes have been giving very distinguished and valuable service, and doing so increasingly. It is these vehicles that will be the most easy to dispose of. The vehicles upon the trunk roads comprise three-quarters of the whole fleet of

the Road Haulage Executive and more than three-quarters of the vehicles which the Commission are able to dispose of under the Bill.
That being so, is it not monstrous that those vehicles that are being disposed of, public property, are to go without any kind of statutory obligation that they will continue to give service to the public approximating to what they were previously giving? I think it is outrageous and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the position.
6.0 p.m.
At the moment, under Clause 1 an obligation is placed upon the Commission to ensure that there shall be no disturbance of the transport service given to the public up to the time of disposal. The Minister has therefore admitted the necessity of a statutory obligation that transport shall not be unnecessarily disturbed pending the disposal laid down in Clauses 2 and 3; but there is no equivalent statutory obligation to avoid disturbance at the time of disposal.
What conceivable principle can be called in aid to defend a statutory requirement that the Commission shall avoid disturbance to the industry pending disposal and yet is entirely free to commit that degree of disturbance at the time of disposal? That is an anomaly. It is a contrast which cannot be justified by any logic or reason and I am bound to say that those of us on this side of the Committee who have worked on this question think that undoubtedly the best way to get over the difficulty is to give the Commission power to introduce into the conditions of transfer a condition that equivalent services—not merely an equivalent service base—at equivalent rates should be made available by the purchasers, whether they use their own vehicles or vehicles purchased from the Disposal Board.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I was rather sorry that I did not have the good fortune to catch the eye of your predecessor, Sir Charles, immediately after the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) had resumed his seat, as I intend to devote most of my short comments to what he had to relate to the Committee about the state of affairs that obtains in the Midlands in connection with transport arrangements.
I, too, should declare my interest as a C licence operator, but one holding very different views from those of the hon. Gentleman. He managed to create the impression that the vast volume of goods which is at present being hauled by British Road Services between the Black Country towns and the adjoining industrial towns, such as Kidderminster, to London, Liverpool, Bristol and elsewhere, would suddenly be left unserviced when these long-distance vehicles were sold by the Disposal Board to the private enterprise incoming firms.
In fact that volume of traffic, in greater or less degree, has been flowing along those routes for the last 30 or 40 years, with only slight variations from year to year according to the variations of trade and industry. The incoming private enterprise concerns are not going to seek to remove those lorries from the heavily-loaded and profitable long-distance routes upon which they have been engaged for many years, to other routes in other parts of the country, which are already well served by long-distance lorries, unless there is an inducement to do so.
To give a straightforward example, there are several scores of long-distance vehicles operating between London, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Liverpool. Similarly, there are several scores of long-distance lorries operating between London, Leicester and Nottingham. The number of lorries on each of those routes is directly related to the volume of traffic available. That is the determining factor, and an incoming private enterprise concern is not going to buy an operable unit in the West Midlands, operating between that area, and London and Liverpool where there is a large existing volume of traffic, and very suddenly take the lorries away and put them on the route between London, Leicester and Nottingham.

Mr. Percy Morris: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, the incoming private enterprise concerns would be very different from the outgoing ones in 1945. One of the greatest and most varying factors were the conditions of service under which men were engaged both in administrative and operative positions. I should like the hon. Member to indicate what attraction he has to offer the 14,000 administrative people to do the work without any statutory benefits.

Mr. Nabarro: I was not discussing the question of terms of employment of operatives within the industry. I was talking about the sale of lorries and the loading of routes. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a different issue but, if I may give him the short answer—as I did last week—it is the job of the trade unions to look after the conditions of employment within the industry.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I would suggest to the hon. Member that there has never been a service of this character and magnitude, and with this tonnage, where the trader knew that his traffic would be leaving at a certain time each day and that every day there would be regular trunk services up and down the country. That service was never provided before the advent of the Road Haulage Executive.

Mr. Nabarro: I am a younger man than the hon. Gentleman, and it is therefore fair to say that I have not been in commerce and industry for quite as many years as he has; but within my experience of haulage traffic, in great variety between different points of the country, private enterprise firms, before nationalisation, on long runs were able to give their customers comparable if not more efficient services than are given by the nationalised body.
It is completely false to suggest that, in pre-nationalisation days, the magnificent service operated between London, Birmingham and Liverpool—to give one example—whereby any undertaking at the northern or southern end of that axis could load goods overnight and be certain of their arrival at the destination next morning, at a pre-determined time, has been excelled by British Road Services.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury expressed considerable apprehension, in connection with these Amendments, that certain of the vehicles being disposed of would find their way into the hands of C licence operators. It will be a very good thing if they do, because it is not only a question of brewers owning those vehicles. What about a steel company owning the vehicles? There is a steel company in North Wales which operates a large fleet of 14- to 16-ton, eight wheeled, E.R.F. diesel-engined vehicles under C licences. If it is found convenient, efficient and profitable for that


steel company to haul its finished products over long distances by that system and often to bring in its raw materials on the return journey, why should they not be allowed to own these vehicles, and work them in conjunction with A licence vehicles purchased as part of an operable unit?
I conceive certain circumstances that will arise in the affairs of this Disposal Board—and I direct these comments particularly to my right hon. Friend—whereby it will be a thoroughly satisfactory state of affairs for an industrial company to buy an operable unit with A licences, already having C licences, and to work the two concerns together. In my view it will lead to lower operating costs in certain circumstances, a higher loading ratio of all the vehicles and, in certain specialised circumstances, I would say that it would be very wrong to seek to exclude the sale of the B.R.S. vehicles simply because the buyer wished to apply C licence work to them.
Earlier in the course of our debate on this Amendment a suggestion was made that British Road Services in the rural areas were providing services that had not hitherto been provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) instanced his constituency, which has an area of approximately 1,000 square miles, largely rural and agricultural in character. The hon. Member for Wednesbury does not have any farms in his constituency. That is why he talks so much about farming.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I must correct the hon. Member: I have one.

Mr. Nabarro: I am almost on level pegging, because in 1945 I had the honour to contest the constituency next door to that of the hon. Member—West Bromwich—where there is one farm.
In the Kidderminster constituency, in addition to the large industrial area, there are, of course, hundreds of farming and horticultural enterprises. In the last few years since nationalisation, British Road Services have not even started to understand their requirements or interests, let alone serve them. If evidence of this is wanted, let me say that until a few months ago, firms which are now restricted under A licence to operating only within a 25 miles limit, had been given the special dispensation of operating

up to 150 miles from their base. These were private firms, not British Road Services, and the reason, simply expressed, is that the British Road Services did not always wish to operate in remote rural areas because they deemed the work concerned to be of an uneconomic and unprofitable character.
It is hypocrisy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest that the effect of the nationalisation of road transport has been to provide an admirable service for remote rural areas. I believe that the restoration of free enterprise transport will give those remote rural areas a better opportunity for a good road haulage service than they have hitherto had.
There is one last point. My right hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen opposite referred to the question—the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) spoke very strongly on the point—of providing some form of safeguard within the statute that operable units which are sold should continue to serve the same areas under free enterprise as they had been serving under the British Road Services organisation. In my view, nothing would be more difficult, if not impossible, to legislate for.
The areas of operation of lorries are, surely, controlled by the laws of supply and demand, and always will be. That is most certainly so in the case of British Road Services today. If British Road Services have too many vehicles in their Wolverhampton depot for the goods that are available to be carried, they would move the surplus vehicles to another area. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the advantage of national ownership."] Not at all. Under free enterprise, there would not be too many vehicles anyway, because it would be the private operators' money that was being lost and the owners of those vehicles would make certain that the surplus vehicles did not exist.
In my view, any attempt by my right hon. Friend to regulate where the B.R.S. vehicles, as they are sold, should operate, would be foredoomed to failure, for circumstances and trading conditions within commerce, within industry, within farming, horticulture and so on, inevitably change week by week and month by month. We do not want rigidity or inflexibility in this matter. We want the greatest possible degree of flexibility. What is more important—I press this on


my right hon. Friend in case he is jockeyed into a position by hon. Gentlemen opposite—is that the purpose of the Bill should be freedom, and not the imposition of any regulation or control that is not strictly and absolutely necessary.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Barnes: It is very interesting to compare the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), to which we have just listened, with the explanation which the Minister gave, or attempted to give, to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). The hon. Member for Kidderminster is suggesting that there should be no control whatever on the sale of vehicles. The Minister did his best to try to prove that there were adequate safeguards in the Bill to protect an indiscriminate sale of these goods.
The group of Amendments that we are proposing has the intention of inserting in the Bill sufficient safeguards to maintain a trunk service of road haulage. The hon. Member said that there were trunk road services before the 1947 Act. I agree. There was a type of company—an example is the Bouts-Tillotson Company, and there were others—which ran a regular service from point "A" to point "B," night after night and day after day. But that represented the covering of a certain route and was not in the form of a network throughout the entire country. When Bouts-Tillotsons and others were taken over, their organisation was made the basis of a national network of trunk road services. That is what has happened in the last three or four years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury has pointed out that there is a great body of business opinion that has learned the economic value of that network of services.
As one who was in office during their teething troubles, I should be the last to argue that the British Road Services administration and organisation were efficient to the point that they could be, or that their organisation was permanently settled and rooted down. I did not take that view. In fact, towards the end of my administration, because I felt it essential that before they rooted down the road services should be married to the

trade requirements of the country, I invited the Federation of British Industries and the Chambers of Commerce, who were the customers of British Road Services, to meet the Chairmen of the Executives to secure any modification that was necessary. There was not the slightest doubt that those two organisations did not challenge the basic principle that we wanted a road haulage service, if not on the common carrier basis, at any rate at the convenience of the average manufacturer.
There are two types of transport of goods. There is the large organisation that can afford its own C-licence fleet for that range of its goods that it must keep under its complete control—that is, personal transport service. There are other traders, including those with C-licence vehicles, who for special parcels or special deliveries, or because they have not sufficient goods for an economic load, must use the public transport system.
It has emerged very clearly in our debates, which are bound to suffer under the Guillotine procedure, that as we deal with each group of Amendments and discuss them to a certain point, the purpose of the Government's policy becomes clear. We do not, however, have an opportunity of pursuing it. I shall deal later, if time permits, with the licensing safeguard which the Minister mentioned, but on the previous Amendment we saw reflected on the other side of the Committee a desire to avoid the consequences of the levy as. far as possible. It was eminently a businesslike proposal, but, nevertheless, it was turned down, primarily on the grounds of delay. It is this hurried, determined procedure, to liquidate British Road Services, that is the root of all the difficulties that we are discussing here tonight.
Again I refer to the people in commerce, not because they represent any specially important point of view, but because they represent a great range of small manufacturers and commercial personnel, who must use the transport services particularly for small parcels and things of that description. They are concerned at the breaking up of this new, co-ordinated transport system. Let us consider how a depot works today. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, that it might be running a service between Birmingham and London, but the value of this network is


that, through this administration, when a lorry runs to any particular point, it is known where there is a return load, and this may be known from some other depot, and the lorry may run a little off its route to pick up a return load.

Mr. Nabarro: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has just mentioned Tillotson's, who used to specialise, in pre-nationalisation days, on the Manchester to London route. I mentioned the other day MacNamara's, who used to specialise on the Liverpool-Birmingham-London route. The benefit of those specialist services was the high loading ratio, and the fact that they always had return loads.

Mr. Barnes: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree with this, that if that is justified on a particular route, there is no case against applying it throughout the whole country. That is the point that has not been answered today. If it can be argued at one moment that a specific route represents an advantage to the trader, then it cannot be denied that, if that same principle of transport were applied throughout the country, it would be beneficial to the trade of the country as a whole.
Now let us deal with the disposal of this property. The Minister says, quite rightly, that after a given transport unit has been purchased by some intending operator he must get the endorsement of the licensing authority with regard to the issue of his special licence. That is true. But there is no guarantee, and there is no safeguard in the Bill, that after the individual has got his five years special A licence he will carry out those obligations over the next five years. I do not say that operators generally would not, but they may not—a sufficient number of them may not—to the extent of disrupting our trunk road goods haulage services.
There is this inducement. These vehicles are very expensive today, but the purchaser who purchases these vehicles from the road haulage organisation will not have to pay on them any Purchase Tax. That has already been paid.

Mr. Woodburn: They are in first-class condition.

Mr. Barnes: So there is a great inducement to any operator. I have had people come to me asking me whether they

would be eligible to buy units of this kind. What difference does the A licence make to them, if it is the vehicles they want to get hold of? Surely the Minister and the Government and the party opposite ought at least to ensure, if they are going to hand these services back to private enterprise, that the trade and in dustry of this country will not suffer.
These 35,000 vehicles ought to be retained for this service. It is no use arguing that the 115,000 vehicles now run by the A and B licence holders on short distance traffic will do this job. They will not. They never did 'do it. They did not do it before the 1947 Act. If they had done it they would have been acquired under the provisions of that Act, and made part of British Road Services. These vehicles that we are discussing were long distance road haulage vehicles in 1947. They were carrying out their job in a disconnected manner. What has happened in the last three or four years is that they have been linked together in a series of depots. It is the same number of vehicles doing the same type of job but co-ordinated and ordered to do a specific task. Now the Government propose to hand these back to private enterprise.
There cannot be one gigantic monopoly. That would be against all their views. So these vehicles, if they are to be sold back in nine months, arc to be purchased by small, medium and large operators. The small operators are not long distance hauliers. They know nothing about it, and they will not do the job. The medium sized hauliers have only a local area knowledge. It is true this is beyond 25 miles, but, nevertheless, their work is area and district and local work, and they will not do the trunk system. The financial groups who will come in, if they are to do the big trunk road systems, ought, I say, to accept the obligations which British Road Services have accepted. For those reasons I support the Amendment.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I have only a few moments, and so I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) if he does not mind. I want to address myself to the general effect of the Amendment. It is to try to compel something to happen that will not be practical in the long run. It is to insist


that the same services should apply as now. It is just not practical from a commercial point of view, because, obviously, as my right hon. Friend has already said, trade is always found to be altering and varying. if these stipulations are put upon the new purchasers, and if they are compelled to keep the same services running, their working conditions will be impossible; a burden will be put on them impossible for them to carry from a commercial point of view, if the newcomers, coming back into the industry, are to run their businesses on a sound basis.
I maintain that the proposal of the Amendment is not sound or businesslike from the long term point of view. We all, of course, want efficient transport services, and we want the transport operators to be able to operate their businesses on a basis from which they can come out at a profit. The compulsion suggested in the Amendment does not exist today for British Road Services. British Road Services are not compelled to take traffic.

Mr. Callaghan: They do.

Mr. Harris: I am not saying they are not being helpful. I am not making that suggestion. But, from a company's point of view, we cannot compel it to take up traffic. It is obvious that the people coming back to the industry will want to keep up service, but we cannot compel them to undertake something that is not even compulsory on British Road Services.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Has the hon. Gentlemen ever known them to refuse?

Mr. Harris: Oh, yes. They are not always in a position to give immediate service. It is impossible to pretend that, if one wants to send some goods tomorrow, British Road Services are waiting to take those goods. The supply and demand position is bound to answer these problems in the long run. Anyone operating these services on a commercial basis is bound to want to operate them to the satisfaction of his customers, and we must give these people the chance. The law of supply and demand will automatically settle the matter, and we can rely on the operators coming back to the industry to provide efficient transport services, and to give the same satisfactory service they gave to the country in time of war.

Mr. Callaghan: Sir Charles, once again the Guillotine is about to fall—

It being half-past Six o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the Proceedings on Clause 3.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 261.

Division No. 34.]
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, A. C.
Colegate, W. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Cooper, Son. Ldr. Albert


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Braise, B. R.
Craddock, Beresford (Spel[...]horne)


Arbuthnot, John
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Cranborne, Viscount


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bromley-Devonport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crouch, R. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Cuthbert W. N.


Banks, Col. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Barber, Anthony
Bullard, D. G.
Davidson, Viscountess


Barlow, Sir John
Bullock, Capt. M.
Deedes, W. F.


Baxter, A. B.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Burden, F. F. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Butcher, H. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Campbell, Sir David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Carson, Hon. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas(Richmond)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Duthie, W. S.


Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Black, C. W.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cole, Norman
Erroll, F. J.




Fell, A.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Renton, D. L. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Robertson, Sir David


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Robson-Brown, W.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fort, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Foster, John
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, R. S.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Low, A. R. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Gammans, L. D.
McAdden, S. J.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McCallum, Major D.
Scott, R. Donald


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Godber, J. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, William


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
McKibbin, A. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gower, H. R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclean, Fitzroy
Snadden, W. McN.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Speir, R. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stevens, G. P.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Harpies, A. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvey, fan (Harrow. E.)
Maude, Angus
Storey, S.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maudling, R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Studholme, H. G.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Mellor, Sir John
Summers, G. S.


Heath, Edward
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Sutcliffe, H.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Morrison, John (Salisbury).
Teeling, W.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thorntan-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hollis, M. C.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Tilney, John


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hope, Lord John
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Turner, H. F. L.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon Henry
Nugent, G. R. H.
Turton, R. H.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M P.
Nutting, Anthony
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Horobin, I. M.
Odey, G. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vosper, D. F..


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hutchison, Lt.-Corn. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Osborne, C.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Partridge, E.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Watkinson, H. A.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pete, Brig. C. H. M
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Kaberry, D.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lambton, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, J. D.
York, C.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Raikes, H. V.



Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rayner, Brig. R
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Leather, E. H. C.
Redmayne, M.
Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Balfour, A.
Blenkinsop, A.


Adams, Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Blyton, W. R.


Albu, A. H.
Bartley, P.
Boardman, H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bence, C. R.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Benn, Wedgwood
Bowles, F. G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Benson, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Beswick, F.
Brockway, A. F


Awbery, S. S.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bing, G. H. C.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Baird, J.
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)







Brown, Thomas lnce)
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Carmichael, J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Champion, A. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Chapman, W. 0
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Richards, R.


Chetwynd, G. R
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Clunie, J.
Danner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coldrick, W.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Collick, P. H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Ross, William


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Royle, C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Grossman, R. H. F
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sh[...]rmer, P. L. E.


Daises, P.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Kinley, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek),
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Deer, G.
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Leslle (Ardwick)
Sparks, J. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Steele, T.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edelman, M.
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McInnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Ewart, R.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Field, W. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thornton, E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Tomney, F.


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Turner-Samuels, M.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Usborne, H. C.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moody, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wade, D. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morley, R.
Watkins, T. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Glanville, James
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Weitzman, O.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Grimond, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wigg, George


Hale, Lesllie (Oldham, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oswald, T.
Willey, F. T.


Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hargreaves, A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pannell, Charles
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parker, J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham C.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Paton, J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Pearl, T. F.
Wyatt, W. L.


Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Yates, V. F


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Popplewell, E.



Holt, A. F.
Porter. G
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Houghton, Douglas
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. James Johnson and




Mr. Wallance.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(TRANSFER OF TRANSPORT UNITS TO COMPANIES UNDER CONTROL OF COMMISSION.)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 13 to 29.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Charles, if we took this Amendment together with the Amendments in page 7, line 18, leave out "six-fifths," and insert "twelve-fifths," and the Amendment in page 7, leave out lines 25 to 29. We would not, but for the Guillotine, wish to take these Amendments together. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) should find anything funny in that remark, when we have just had a discussion cut short by the Guillotine. I see no reason why, when we have to compress these Amendments into one when they cover different points, that that should be a subject of mirth to the hon. Member.
The purpose of this Amendment is to take out of Clause 4 the limitation that is placed upon the British Transport Commission, requiring that the Minister shall make over to them only six-fifths of the total weight unladen of the motor vehicles owned by them in 1948. This particular subsection has had an interesting history, as the Minister will well remember. The intention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government was that the railways, in the words of the Minister, should be divested of their road haulage interest and have no road vehicles at all.
There was a very powerful speech in the debate in which he made that pronouncement by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), whom we are glad to see in his place, and I believe that it was largely as a result of what he said, and not by any means as a result of anything which we said on this side, that the Government thought again about this particular provision and decided that the railways should be allowed to keep some part of the vehicles that they had owned, equivalent, in fact, to the vehicles they had owned at the date of nationalisation on 1st January, 1948. That was second thoughts, and second thoughts were certainly better than first thoughts on this matter.
6.45 p.m.
Now we have had third thoughts on the matter, because the latest edition of the Bill prescribes that the British Transport

Commission shall be allowed to keep six-fifths of the vehicles that were in
the ownership of the railways on 1st January, 1948. We can, therefore, say that the Minister has gradually qualified for grace, and, no doubt, if we had another edition of the Transport Bill, we might get the number even higher than it is at present. We hope to subscribe some suggestions, although we are working under a Guillotine, and try to persuade him to do one or two things.
We should like to give the Minister carte blanche to make over to the British Transport Commission a sufficient number of vehicles to enable them to run long-distance road haulage services, but if he will not accept that—and I quite understand that he may feel that to do so would be to go against the principle of the Bill, although for the life of me I cannot see why—we fall back on the second Amendment, which prescribes that instead of the British Transport Commission being allowed to keep six-fifths of the vehicles they owned in 1948 they should be allowed to keep twelve-fifths of those vehicles.
Some hon. Member may ask, what is the virtue of six-fifths? I am not sure that there is any virtue in it. I believe that it is a convenient number which represents the number of vehicles that the railways might have been expected to have had, had there been no nationalisation, based on the normal rate of growth that was going on. There is no virtue about six-fifths, and equally there is no virtue about twelve-fifths, which doubles the number of vehicles they should retain.
The Minister, when he came to move the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to this and said:
So the rather cumbersome phrase of 'six-fifths of their former holding' appears, and by that we mean all that they had before plus 20 per cent. more. This will make the British Transport Commission the largest road haulage undertaking in the country, and all the people who want to see what happens. in friendly rivalry between different forms of transport will have an opportunity of seeing that now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507. c. 1418.]
I suppose that the Minister had in mind that there was going to be a long-distance road haulage trunk service, which the Commissions would be allowed to run. because they would have rather more than 4,000 vehicles on the basis of six-fifths—I think, 4,200—and, therefore, that


pretty considerable number of vehicles would act in competition with the private hauliers, about whom we heard so much in the discussion on the last Clause, and we would be able to see just how far competition between public and private service would redound to the benefit or the credit of either.
What the Minister did not make clear—and this is one of the things about which I should like to ask him and on which I will gladly give way—was what the effect of that would be under subsection (2) of Clause 4, which prescribes that
the vehicles so made over make up. or would, if all were made over to the same company. make up,"—
and these are the important words—
a fleet of vehicles comparable, as respects Me size, nature and quality of the vehicles comprised therein, to a fleet made up of the vehicles so owned.
I understand that to mean that the Commission will be able to keep in their companies six-fifths of what they had before in relation to each of the types of vehicles which they had before. We have a very distinguished law officer present on our side of the Committee, but there is no Government Law Officer here, and perhaps the Minister is going to assume that responsibility among his many others, but if I am right this means that what the British Transport Commission will be able to keep will be six-fifths of the furniture removal vans which they had, six-fifths of such heavy haulage vehicles as they had, six-fifths of Carter Paterson's parcel vans, six-fifths of their meat vans, and so on. It was the Minister's intention, following the speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon, to make over to them the vehicles which they had before, which was roughly the Pickford and the Carter Paterson services.
What I am not clear about—and hope the Minister will clear this up—is what he meant when he said that these vehicles would be in competition with the private road haulage vehicles which will be operating on the trunk routes. Let me remind him of his speech again:
All the people who want to see what happens in friendly rivalry between different forms of transport will have an opportunity of seeing that now.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1418.]

With great respect to the Minister, I do not follow that, because it is well known that Pickford's and Carter Paterson's were never in competition on the long-distance road haulage services; that was not the traffic they were running. That is all within our personal knowledge, whether we know anything about transport or not. Did the Minister mean anything by those words, or was it a gloss, which at first sight deceived me? I thought, "They are going to have several hundreds more vehicles than they had. They will perhaps be able to operate long-distance trunk services, and this is certainly the sort of thing which would follow the principles of the Bill."
I ask the Minister to give us an assurance: Will this Clause operate in such a way that the British Transport Commission will be able to run a long-distance road haulage service and at the same time keep the vehicles that he undertook in his speech of 21st May should be kept by the British Transport Commission? My understanding of this Clause is that they will be able to do nothing of the sort. Will the right hon. Gentleman not have to amend this Clause anyway, if he wishes to keep his twin undertakings, first that they shall be allowed to take back the vehicles that were taken from them, and second that they shall be able to run a long-distance road haulage service in competition with other long-distance road hauliers? I put it to the Minister that he cannot achieve that purpose under this part of the Clause as drafted.
What are the Minister's intentions? We believe that the best thing to do would be to take out these words altogether so that he could have freedom to make over to the British Transport Commission, in the companies they set up, sufficient vehicles to enable both his promises to be fulfilled. That is what we would like to see. If he will not do that, I suggest he should then fall back on the, in our view, rather inferior alternative, because it is a restrictive alternative, which ties him down—and I would expect to have the support of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) here, because he is most anxious not to tie the Minister or anybody down under this Bill.
If the Minister overrules his hon. Friend, we suggest he should have sufficient vehicles made over to one or


more companies of the British Transport Commission as will enable them to run a long-distance road haulage service. That will enable him to redeem the promises that he made, the undertakings that he gave us. If he leaves the Clause untouched, it is my understanding that he will not be able to redeem his promises to the House. and via the House to the country at large.

Mr. Angus Maude: I am trying to follow the argument, but I cannot discover from column 1418 of HANSARD of 17th November, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, any promise, or indeed any reference to a long-distance haulage undertaking of the British Transport Commission. If that is the paragraph on which the hon. Gentleman is basing his argument, I do not think it says that.

Mr. Callaghan: I must say that I would far sooner have the Minister's view on this than that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maude: But that is not what he meant.

Mr. Callaghan: It was undoubtedly the impression the Minister gave to the House on that occasion. Whatever he meant to say, that is the impression he gave, that there would be two competing forms of long-distance road haulage service. and it is to that that I am directing my attention. The Minister, who is an experienced public man, will not deny that that was the impression that was in his mind, or the impression he intended to convey to hon. Members, and I am suggesting to the Committee that the Clause does not permit this operation to be carried out.
We believe it is necessary to retain to the British Transport Commission as many vehicles as possible to enable them to run a trunk service. We do so because we believe that this is one way of salvaging from the wreck of the 1947 Act—and the Minister is wrecking it, as he fully realises; indeed, he glories in wrecking it, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite support him in wrecking it—a very necessary and sensible part of something which emerged from that Act, namely, the operation of long-distance road haulage services run in conjunction with the railways.
Whatever views hon. Gentlemen opposite may hold about the short-distance services of British Road Services, I have

not yet met one man who honestly and objectively could utter a complaint about the efficiency and speed of the long-distance trunk services of British Road Services, or the way in which they were conducted. I have never yet met anybody who fairly and objectively uttered criticisms about that. Their time-table services operating out of London and out of all the large provincial centres were built up after 1947. Now these are facts, and it is no use the Committee blinking at facts because of prejudice. They were built up after 1947 on a time-table basis. scheduled out of one large industrial centre into another large industrial centre: they operated with time-table frequency and accuracy. I have had personal experience of them, having travelled on them during the Recesses. and they are models.
It is this service that I believe the traders and industry of the country are most concerned should not be broken up. It is exactly this long-distance service which, although it existed in a rudimentary form beforehand, has been created, with the interchange of traffic and tele-printers that operate from one office to another in order that they may balance their traffic between one centre and another. The Minister has seen these operations. It is this creation that traders and industry are anxious to preserve, and they are so anxious because the Minister seems likely to destroy it.
Acceptance of any of these Amendments would give him the opportunity to preserve this long-distance trunk service, which would enable the impression he gave hon. Members to be carried out, namely, that British Road Services would be able to operate in competition with private road hauliers. I do not believe that they are frightened of competition. I think they are ready to have a go at it to see what they can make of it. If the Minister really believes in competition, I appeal to him to let them have a go at it and to see what they can make of it. If he really believes in competition and not in a semi-licensed monopoly—which is the position we shall get into once this Clause is passed; there will not be freedom but a semi-licensed monopoly—we trust that the right hon. Gentleman will, for the first time in the course of our debate so far, be able to give us a favourable answer.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: In supporting this Amendment, let me say that the Minister has paid some attention to this very important factor and has, to some extent, changed his point of view upon it. In an earlier statement the Minister referred to a Question which I put down asking for information on the road haulage undertakings which were owned or partly owned by railway companies, and which vested in the Commission at 1st January, 1948. The answer to that Question appeared as a Written Answer on 10th June, 1952.
The right hon. Gentleman said he was rather amazed at the extent to which the former railway companies had been obliged to extend their activities into the general field of road haulage. The right hon. Gentleman, presumably, takes these figures as the basis for assessing an additional one-fifth to that strength, but he has not been very clear in indicating to the House precisely the basis on which he arrives at that calculation. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is very important, because we want to know whether the British Transport Commission is to have discretion in regard to the type of vehicle it may retain over and above the five-fifths or whether it is to be held down to only the one-fifth increase on the basis of the type of vehicle which it took over in 1948.
It is very important that the right hon. Gentleman should give an adequate answer to that question because the services previously operated by the railway companies through their ownership of road haulage undertakings has changed very substantially in the past four years. These services have been integrated in an intimate way with, very largely, the railway services of the country. I can foresee exceptional difficulties arising if the Minister is now going to say, as he does in this Clause, that these vehicles must be pruned away from British Railways and that the British Transport Commission must set up one or a number of private companies to operate that part of road haulage which will be left to it.
With all respect, that is an absolutely absurd and ridiculous proposition to make. On what basis does the Minister propose that such private companies

shall be set up? Does he propose to go back to the form of those undertakings which existed before nationalisation, and when, for instance, Hay's Wharf Cartage Company had 32 subsidiaries, all of which have been taken over, and when many other road haulage undertakings previously owned by the railway companies or in which they had a financial interest also had a large number of subsidiary undertakings?
Is the Minister proposing to reintroduce that system, because, if so, it just will not work. Each of those subsidiaries had a special job to do, but now the position is quite different. The whole of this road haulage undertaking previously in the hands of the railway companies has been completely merged, not wholly, it is true, with the railway system, but also with the road haulage long-distance traffic. Therefore, I cannot for the life of me—and I do not think anybody else in the industry can either—see the sense or the reason for asking the British Transport Commission to prune off, if it can, these vehicles from their existing road transport fleet and to set up separate companies for their operation. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that British Railways are to have restored to their control their previous collection and delivery services and the fleet of vehicles which operate these services.
Those vehicles about which there is no difficulty in regard to their retention by the British Transport Commission have been very closely integrated with the private road haulage undertakings which the former railway companies either owned or in which they had a financial interest. They have been integrated so intimately that it really is preposterous to suggest that British Railways shall now be called upon to separate the sheep from the goats, and that, while their collection and delivery services may be run under their direct control, the operation of vehicles previously belonging to private road haulage companies in which the railways had a financial interest can only be undertaken by separate companies set up for that purpose.
No one knows whether there will be one or half a dozen such companies, or what their functions will be. Are they, for instance, to compete with each other, and what is to be their relationship to the collection and delivery services of British


Railways? The only sensible proposition—given the fact that the Government are going to get their Bill—is not to set up a series of private companies to assume once again the control of a part of British Railways' road haulage vehicles, but to permit the British Transport Commission or British Railways themselves to set up a road transport department within their organisation as operated before nationalisation and to let British Railways have the complete control and direction of all their vehicles, whether they be vehicles used in their collection and delivery services or vehicles previously belonging to private road haulage undertakings in which the railways had a financial interest.
I appeal to the Minister to give very serious consideration to the matter. I can see no real advantage whatever in placing upon the British Transport Commission this somewhat ridiculous task of having to split up the vehicles remaining to itself and of having a system of dual or multiple control in the operation of those vehicles. Having made that point, which I think is one of great substance, I hope the Minister will reflect upon it and will give it the serious consideration which it deserves. In addition, I am sure that those engaged in the transport industry would be glad if the Minister would state much more clearly than he has so far just precisely the basis on which he arrives at this six-fifths definition.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I trust that when the Minister comes to reply he will bear in mind certain points in regard to Clause 4. I think all of us would look at this matter more easily if we considered it from the point of view of transport and not so much from the point of view of railways. I hope that in future the British Transport Commission will look upon transport, whether it be by road or rail, as the one method of carrying on the country's business.
I believe that when people discuss fractions in regard to what the British Transport Commission may retain, it is sometimes forgotten that during the last few years the large number of horses which we on the railways used to own have practically all disappeared, with the consequence that the work which was previously done by horses is now done by mechanical means, in addition to the normal expansion of mechanical vehicles.

If the Minister desires the Commission to be free to carry on a really large system of transport which is of advantage to the country, I hope he will allow greater latitude to the Commission in retaining their own property in order to operate these long-distance services.
I have had an opportunity of seeing for myself some of the methods of long-distance transport which have been operating, both what is known as "tramping" and "trunking." I have no doubt that the Minister will have to watch with every care the conditions of labour under which these services are operated outside proper control. In the methods of trunking, the long-distance vehicles are taken to a certain point where the drivers are changed. They continue, and the baggage or merchandise is delivered in accordance with a schedule. The drivers do not have these long distances to suffer.
This is a very valuable system that has been built up, and I beg the Minister to ensure that under the Clause it will be continued. I hope that even in the case of what is called "tramping," which means that the vehicle will go without an interchange of drivers for a certain but not very long distance, it is very important that the methods which have been adopted by the Commission should be retained.
There is one matter which has never been mentioned in the Committee. No doubt the Minister has read with great care the report, recently issued by the Government of Northern Ireland, of the Transport Tribunal. That is a document well worth reading by everybody. Its recommendations have been agreed to unanimously, and so far as I can make out the system in Ulster is exactly what we are discussing in this Committee stage.
The recommendations at the end of the report are all in favour of the functioning of road and rail as one transport service. I do not think the report can be dismissed as a purely political document. The people who were appointed to carry out the inquiry had to go into a matter which was originally settled by one of the most distinguished railway transport operators, who was employed by the Government in an advisory capacity. He is a man of singular knowledge. The system he laid down has worked admirably in Ulster.


I admit that Ulster is a smaller area, but the principles are the same.
The report was published only a few days ago. One of its recommendations says:
It is vital that the authority shall retain an adequate number of vehicles to operate with the rail service. Otherwise, traders and manufacturers in Ulster will not be able to get the services they require.
The evidence was conclusive. It is rather unfortunate that whilst we are discussing the Bill we should ignore a practical application of the system which has been in force in Northern Ireland, and which has been inquired into by this tribunal whose report has been issued.
It is of the utmost importance that under Clause 14, by which the Commission have to produce their scheme, we should not hamper them in drawing up their scheme by making it impossible for them to advise the Minister upon a 100 per cent. efficient transport service.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) started his very interesting speech with a rather fanciful picture of how the various changes have come about in the policy of the Government towards this part of the Bill. I think he agrees that though there have undoubtedly been second thoughts in this matter—

Mr. Callaghan: And third thoughts—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —we have arrived at a conclusion which is a great deal more acceptable than was the original conclusion recommended to the House of Commons.
I heard with interest my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) quote from the Northern Ireland report. I have given it some examination, but not the same close examination that I would have given it had I not been immediately preoccupied with the matters now before the Committee. I agree with him that the report was commended to the House by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I hope that the hon. Member will also commend it to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing). There are many things in that report that have application in the affairs of other parts of the United Kingdom, but I do not think that

anyone would pretend that the problems of Northern Ireland are always similar to ours. Nor would anybody deny that there are critics of the transport set-up in Northern Ireland who are quite vocal from time to time.
We are considering three Amendments together, the purpose of them, as the hon. Gentleman clearly pointed out, being that the British Transport Commission should, with my consent, make over to the companies under their control an unlimited number of units. He recognised that this was quite contrary to the purposes of the Bill, and I am sure that he does not expect me to say that we could accept an Amendment in those terms. It seemed to us that it was. only right that the Commission should have a revenue equivalent to the revenue that the old railways had, plus the increase of 20 per cent. for what might have been the natural development in the intervening years.
The hon. Gentleman, realising that nothing could be done with regard to his main contention, argued very persuasively that a larger number of vehicles should be withdrawn from the auction, twelve-fifths instead of six-fifths. He quoted from the various statements that I have made from time to time in the House hoping, I think, to find some irreconcilabilities. I hope he will acquit me of any desire to deceive the House, or to give an impression on one day different from the impression I give on another. I believe that my observations can be read together without any divergence either appearing or being intended.
I share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, that the Commission should have a proper share of road haulage. We have made inquiries of the Commission, and I would like to thank the Commission at this stage not only for the courtesy with which they always receive my inquiries but for the promptitude with which they produce adequate and valuable comment and statistics. We have made inquiries of the Commission, and I have certain figures to give the House which may help us to see the matter in better perspective. Constant harping on long-distance haulage, as if it were the only field
of transport activity and one in which the Commission should be allowed undisputed rights, puts the whole picture slightly out of focus.
According to a preliminary estimate given to me by the Commission about the number and unladen weight of motor vehicles owned by road haulage companies controlled by the former railways on 1st January, 1948, and which passed into the possession of the Commission, the position was as follows: heavy haulage, 164 vehicles, of an unladen weight of 1,884 tons; other special services, 1,257 vehicles of an unladen weight of 3,806 tons; parcels services, 1,777 vehicles of an unladen weight of 5,111 tons; ordinary load carriers, 701 vehicles of an unladen weight of 2,922 tons; making in all 3,899 vehicles with a total unladen weight of 13,723 tons.
Of course, the position is somewhat complicated by the quite proper emergence of the Special Traffic (Pickfords) Division. The Commission also tell me that the heavy haulage fleet of that division in mid-1952 was 426 vehicles of an unladen weight of 4,734 tons. In these figures, of course, the heavy haulage figures already quoted are included. They say that the other services in the Pickfords Division number 2,665 vehicles of an unladen weight of 9,974 tons. This totals in the Pickfords Division 3,091 vehicles of an unladen weight of 14,708 tons. Then we asked them the number of vehicles at any one moment engaged on general parcels work. The answer was that 3,400 are so engaged.

Mr. Sparks: When the Minister refers to the parcels service, is he relating that number directly to the vehicles in use by the former private companies?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These are vehicles from the entire field engaged on an average at any one moment in parcels service deliveries.

Mr. Sparks: Including the railways?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not including delivery and feeder services which do not come into this picture, the total of which, speaking from memory, is 14,000 vehicles. They form no part of the Road Haulage Executive and do not fall to be disposed of under this Bill.
What is the effect on this massive fleet of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government? I am told—though the figures may need some more accurate assessment in the light of unladen weight categories and I would not tie myself to the figures—

that under the provisions in this Bill the proposal is that the original holding of the railways plus a 20 per cent. increase should be assured to the Commission. The Commission would now be able, with my consent, to make over the following road transport to companies under their control: heavy haulage, 197 vehicles; other special services 1,508; parcels services 2,132 and ordinary load carriers, of which quite rightly we hear such a great deal, 841.
This will leave with the Commission a substantial holding. It must be remembered that one of the purposes of Her Majesty's Government in introducing this Bill is to break up monopoly. I do not make any apology for the fact that one consequence is that the monopoly in heavy haulage and in other fields will be broken up. However, I am concerned that, when broken up, there should still be a substantial share accruing to the Commission. This will leave 47 per cent. of the heavy haulage with the Commission that is now included in the Special Traffics Division, 57 per cent. of vehicles for special services, 63 per cent. of the average number of vehicles now used for parcels and, in ordinary long distance haulage, 841 vehicles. It is our view that this will enable, what the hon. Gentleman slightly ridiculed when he quoted it, friendly rivalry to take place. I reaffirm that in my view, and in the view of my colleagues, this large fleet assured to the Commission will enable it to be the largest road haulage undertaking in the country.

Mr. Callaghan: What percentage of load carriers does the 841 represent?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have been trying myself to find out. I will take the earliest possible opportunity of announcing that, but I cannot do so at the moment.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister will appreciate that it is a significant figure because this is long-distance haulage.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, but we must be careful not to get this out of perspective. This long-distance haulage is built up of Holdsworth and Hanson, Bouts-Tillotson and others who, as private enterprise, blazed the trail in this field of activity, and we have every reason to expect that their successors will render an equally good national service.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry to keep interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that he is taking powers to limit the size of the operable transport units to 50 vehicles of 200 tons?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, and I also understand that, subject to the assent of the Minister, larger undertakings can be acquired.

Mr. Callaghan: It ought to be in the Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: But it is in the Bill. It is subject to the consent of the Minister. It is limited to 50 vehicles of 200 tons unladen weight unless the Minister consents and, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this House, by and large, road haulage has been an industry of small people with an average holding of three, four or five vehicles. I understand that when the Socialist Government proposals were first introduced only 79 firms had more than 50 vehicles and only 22 had more than 100.
Now I pass to the next point made by the hon. Gentleman, that instead of there being a six-fifths share reserved to the Commission, it should be a twelve-fifths share. Taken in conjunction with the later Amendment about the second proviso, to which I will come in a moment, this would enable one-quarter of the entire fleet, selected as the Commission likes, to be reserved to the Commission. It would be an addition to their pre-nationalisation fleet of 140 per cent., and it could preserve the monopoly in heavy haulage by giving them 90 per cent. of the heavy haulage now in the Pickfords Division. Hon. Gentlemen may have quite genuinely a wholly different view, but in our view that is a disproportionate amount to be in any one hand and that is one of the purposes of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East dealt also with a number of other Amendments—

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Before the Minister leaves that point, he must know that even the Road Haulage Association put forward proposals in 1946 embracing certain understandings that they were prepared to agree, which clearly indicated to everyone concerned that the breakup into the small fleet which the Minister now

suggests is not a practicable proposition for an efficient transport unit.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Much more anxiety has been expressed to me that the road haulage industry might flow into too few hands rather than into too many. All the correspondence I have had, which has been considerable, has displayed much more anxiety about whether the small man will have a chance of coming back again into a business which we believe from every point of view, transport and socially, it is highly desirable he should re-enter.
The Amendment to leave out lines 25 to 29, is part of the same story. If that Amendment were carried, the omission of the proviso would be to leave the Commission absolutely free to make over to the companies, or to any one of the companies, any of the vehicles of the Road Haulage Executive which are to be sold up to the limit of the total unladen weight tonnage as laid down in paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (2). The purpose, of course, of the proviso is that the six-fifths should be related not only to the total fleet, but also, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to each sector of the fleet as well.
7.30 p.m.
I am not altogether happy about the possible consequences of too rigid an insistence on this six-fifths having to be applied to every sector of the road haulage fleet.

Mr. D. Jones: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I finish what I am about to say? There are strong arguments the other way. There are also, of course, very strong arguments in favour of the proviso. Nothing that I say must be taken to mean that we are intending to perpetuate a monopoly in any one of the various sectors. But I shall be very ready—the Opposition have made some powerful points about this—to look again between now and the Report stage, in the light of what has been said and what I myself and others think, at the possibility of differentiating in some way between the proportions in the various categories, and I will take an early opportunity of consulting with the Commission to see what can be done and what would best conform to their wishes in this matter, while at the same


time carrying out the general intentions of the Government in this field.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept any of the Amendments, but I hope that that promise that I have given will bring some comfort to hon. Gentlemen opposite and some reassurance also to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon.

Mr. D. Jones: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of misleading the Committee, but when he explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that his interpretation of the subsection was correct and that the six-fifths would be divided among the various classes of vehicles, he remembered. I am sure, that that will include the vehicles which now handle excepted traffics.
Therefore, the actual figure of six-fifths will not mean that operators will have six-fifths of the vehicles which convey traffics which are covered by the 25-mile restriction on private operators. In fact, a proportion of their vehicle fleet is already in use for the conveyance of excepted traffics. Giving them additional vehicles of that type does not face the problem at all, so that the Minister is not giving them the total number of figures in competitive road haulage traffic that he led the Committee to believe.
I want to make one other important point. A good deal has been said, not only today and last week, but in the preceding transport debates, that there has been little or no integration of any kind. I am sure the Minister will recognise that in spite of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) said, in a previous debate, that the Road Haulage Executive had up to now been concentrating on the acquiring of vehicles and bringing them up to modern conditions, there has been a good deal of integration.
I do not know whether the Minister has any similar figures, but perhaps he will accept it from me that those which I am about to give are authentic figures of containers which travel nightly from certain London stations to Manchester and Glasgow and, in the third case, of containers on carriers which are contained in train loads from Birmingham

to Glasgow. These containers are collected by Road Haulage Executive vehicles, loaded on to railway wagons at the termini and carried to the other end of their journey.
In June of this year, no fewer than 1,017 containers left Broad Street in one month, totalling some 3,490 tons of traffic. to Manchester. In the same month, 222 containers, totalling 770 tons of traffic. were conveyed from St. Pancras to Glasgow. In the same month, 329 containers were conveyed from Birmingham to Glasgow in railway vehicles. All this traffic was collected, both in London and in Birmingham, by Road Haulage vehicles for conveyance to the railhead and redistributed in Glasgow, again by Road Haulage vehicles, to the various traders.
Unless the British Transport Commission are to be allowed to retain more vehicles than the six-fifths will admit, particularly when we exclude the excepted traffics and more particularly when we disregard the Pickford Special Traffic Division and when we exclude the Carter Paterson parcels vans, very few ordinary commercial lorries will be left to do this work, and what integration has been achieved will be destroyed. Therefore. I suggest to the Minister that he should look at this again and that he ought to increase quite substantially the number of vehicles which the British Transport Commission are to be allowed to retain.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that the British Transport Commission and/or the Road Haulage Executive would welcome the opportunity of competing with private hauliers, provided that they are given a free hand to do it. If the Minister really believes in competition, as he so loudly proclaims, both in the House and in the country, let him make that competition fair, and if he wants to break monopoly, as he says in this case, let him have another look at the provisions of Clauses 16 and 17, which come later, in which he deliberately makes it possible to create a privately-owned monopoly while he is trying to break one that is publicly owned.

Mr. Sparks: I was hoping that the Minister would have had something to say about what I said, but he has completely ignored all the points which I made, which, I think, were vital to the


Amendment which we are now considering. As there is no opportunity of discussing the Clause on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," it is very difficult for us if the Minister is not prepared to exercise some latitude and to try to reply to some of these important points.
I want, first, to refer to what the Minister said in regard to the figures which he read out to us of the make-up of the six-fifths of vehicles previously belonging to the road haulage organisations but which were owned by the former railway companies, the figures which he appears to take are confined to the number of vehicles which these road haulage organisations could muster prior to nationalisation, and to that figure he has added about 20 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the composition of the six-fifths total and says that to heavy haulage there will be 179 vehicles; to special services, 1,508; to parcels services, 2,132, and to ordinary load carriers, long-distance, 841, which makes a total of 4,660. Will the Minister give a fuller explanation of what he means by these categories? If they are related wholly to the services performed by these former railway-owned road haulage organisations, there is another field of development outside this category for which, as far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman has made no provision whatsoever. I mentioned them before, but the right hon. Gentleman did not give a satisfactory explanation.
I mentioned the number of branch lines which British Railways had closed and in which cases they were now operating a road haulage fleet. They are contemplating closing quite a few more in the very near future with a view to substituting road for railway services. Are they to be called upon to provide those additional vehicles from the six-fifths?
Another service I mentioned was the seasonal fluctuating service which arises largely during the winter months when fog, snow and bad weather such as we have had recently causes congestion on the railways, particularly at marshalling yards. British Railways have been able to call on the services of Road Haulage Executive vehicles to relieve that congestion. That is quite a distinct and separate

service from that performed by road haulage undertakings owned by the railways before nationalisation.
In addition, there is the throughout road-rail service I mentioned and about which some figures have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) that is the integration of the collection of traffic locally here in London, pooling it, handing over to the railways who convey it by container to Glasgow and other great cities, and then the road haulage undertaking delivers the traffic at the other end. Much of this is quite over and above anything that was done in 1947 and has no connection whatever with the road haulage undertakings which were railway-owned before nationalisation.
This is a quite additional, distinct and separate service—this additional demand on the Road Haulage Executive vehicles and also, on the railways, on what is generally known as their feeder services, the collection and delivery services. The right hon. Gentleman said there were 14,000 of these vehicles. To some extent they have had to bear some of the additional road haulage work I have mentioned.
If British Railways are to continue replacing uneconomic railway branch lines by road services they must see their way clear to be able to supplement them with additional vehicles. If they are to maintain and improve those services of relieving congestion at marshalling yards during winter months they must be able to call on a pool of vehicles which are not needed all the year but only at specific times. If they are to develop their road-rail service they must be able to call upon an increasing number of road vehicles to do so. I know that we live in a transport age, nevertheless we should remember that the railways are a considerable part of our transport organisation and that we cannot do without them.
7.45 p.m.
If we are to encourage the efficiency of railway operation itself we must envisage an increasing number of road vehicles being made available for the railways to improve their own services. I feel that the Minister's proportion of six-fifths is a hit and miss target he put before us. He has given no sound reasons why it


should be six-fifths any more than seven-fifths, eight-fifths or nine-fifths and he has still not explained the basis on which he arrived at the calculation. It is my view, and the view of many who are familiar with this matter, that the percentage increase is totally inadequate and that in the years ahead it will very seriously restrict the efficiency and better organisation of the railway service itself.
Once again, I ask the Minister to give this matter very serious consideration, particularly the point in regard to the formation of private companies—which is to be an obligation on the Transport Commissioncompanies—which is to manage that part of the road haulage fleet which the Minister is proposing to allow the Commission companies—which is to retain. The Minister must look carefully into that. The idea is really fantastic. Between now and the time when this Bill goes to another place the Minister ought to withdraw the proposal which insists that one part of the Transport Commission's vehicles shall be under the control of private companies and another part the feeder services, which is just as important—the 14,000 vehicles—be made over to the control of British Railways.
That is not as it was formerly. The Road Haulage Executive took over from the former railway companies responsibility for their feeder services. The collection and delivery services which were previously under the direct control of British Railways were lost to them and handed over to the Road Haulage Executive. Now that the Road Haulage Executive is to be dismantled, what is to be done with those two sections of road vehicles? The 14,000 collection and delivery vehicles the Minister says, presumably, are to be under the complete control of British Railways and there is no need to set up private companies to manage them.
But in regard to the other section, the 4,660, he says no, British Railways must not have direct control of them but one or more companies must be set up to operate them. So there are to be 14,000 vehicles under British Railways control while any number of companies will be looking after the other 4,660 vehicles. That is fantastic. We must consider these two parts of road haulage together, because they intimately affect the railways. We must unite and integrate them

under one form of control. We cannot expect an organisation like British Railways to operate these road vehicles economically and efficiently if the control and operation are in the hands of two or three, or half a dozen, or more, separate undertakings.
I ask the Minister to give serious attention to this point. I do not believe that there is any case for setting up private companies to manage 4,660 vehicles and, at the same time, permitting 14,000 vehicles to be under the direct control of British Railways. They must be worked together; they are closely linked together and integrated. Surely they ought to be under one form of control in the interests of the transport industry itself.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I intervene for only a few moments expressly to reply to one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I hope that he will acquit me of any discourtesy. I had intended to deal with the points which he had made, but I was swept along on that wave of figures with which I regaled the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman, perhaps unintentionally, gave a rather graphic commentary on integration when he spoke, in his concluding sentences, I think as a railwayman, a name to which he is honourably entitled, of "services lost to us" and handed to the Road Haulage Executive. That surely is the epitaph of integration—services lost to the railways and handed to the Road Haulage Executive. If there was integration, it would not, I think, have occurred to the hon. Member to have described it quite in that way—a compulsory transfer from the railways to the Commission or from the large numbers of companies which I mentioned to the Committee.

Mr. Sparks: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is on the wrong point. Probably I did not use the correct word. When I said "lost to the railways" I was referring to the 14,000 feeder services' vehicles which they had always operated and for which they had direct responsibility. Under the administration of the Transport Act those vehicles were placed under the direction of the Road Haulage Executive, and to that extent the railways lost control of them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know that the hon. Member's explanation really makes a very great deal of difference to the point which I was quite lightly attempting to make.
The hon. Member asked about the company structure. It is our view that there should be a separate financial basis and the closest possible co-ordination, and I do not feel that the proposal about the company structure will do anything to bring about the alarming flexible empires which the hon. Member had in mind.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister has referred to company structure. Would he agree that it is also his idea that it will be permissible for these companies to have a co-ordinating authority, as it were, in order that they can work in harness as a single entity though under separate owners? Would that be in the Minister's mind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly. If the Commission wished for something along those lines I do not see any reason why it should not be looked at sympathetically.
The hon. Member asked me about these categories and requested me to break them down, if I could, into greater detail. Far be it for me to do more than the Transport Commission did. When we asked them for the figures of the various categories this was the form in which they were supplied and I should be getting on to dangerous ground, so far as the hon. Member and many others are concerned, if I attempted to break them down into more exact detail. If there is any point that the hon. Member has in mind, I am sure that the Commission will be willing to break down the figures to any limit desired, or I will make an announcement in the House.
The hon. Member asked about branch lines which have been closed. It is our view that the allowance of six-fifths can fairly take account of any road haulage facilities that have been provided. In new cases of the closing of branch lines, it will be open to the Commission, in this as in other fields, to go to the licensing authority in the ordinary way, and if any licences are granted those vehicles will have nothing to do with the six-fifths limitation. In general, there is nothing to stop the Transport Commission, by the ordinary process of law, to which for the first time it will itself be subject after

the passing of this Bill, from making an ordinary application to the licensing authority to increase its holdings and road haulage activities.
The hon. Member also spoke about the Road Haulage Executive coming to the aid of the railways at certain marshalling points. He has mentioned this before. We are having inquiries made into the matter. I am proposing to have a talk with the Commission about it between now and the Report stage, and I hope that I shall be in a position to say something more worth while in the House.
The hon. Member also asked me about the through container service. If he will look at Clause 8 (2, f) he will see that there are extra facilities for those who have vehicles which participate in arrangements under which goods will be carried partly by road and partly by rail or inland waterway to get some advantage before the licensing authority.
The hon. Member referred to the feeder and delivery services. To clear up any possible doubt, I would say that the 14,000 vehicles which the railways have for feeder and delivery services, and such other vehicles as they may acquire in the ordinary legal way by a proper application, have nothing whatever to do with the Road Haulage Executive property that is to be disposed of. Any figures I have given of the fleet to be left with the Commission are in addition to these feeder and delivery services, which are an essential part of the railway system.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: In his reply, the Minister indicated that it is his plan and policy that when these vehicles are sold they will be owned by many private individuals and that there will be many men owning one or two vehicles. I can understand why the party opposite, from their point of view, think that is desirable, but I wish to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman and to invite him to see the consequences of the fulfilment of that wish. This is not party politics but common sense. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), in his speech—to which the Minister did not reply, in part at all events—said, in dealing with trunk services, that there was today at all events some security in respect of wages and conditions.
The reason why we on this side of the Committee are anxious that the Commission shall have more vehicles than


they are expecting to have is that whatever faults may have emerged from the Transport Commission's activities, in the view of the party opposite, the good thing that has emerged from our point of view is in regard to the wages paid and the conditions of employment, particularly on the trunk services, where it is impossible for any authority to keep a check from the point of departure to the point of arrival. Supposing the Minister's plan succeeds and the Transport Commission is broken up and there are hundreds of small operators with single vehicles. Surely it must be obvious that the effect of the resulting competition will mean disaster from the point of view of working conditions and safety regulations.
I give a small illustration to show what I mean. I hope that the Minister will recognise that I speak with some authority in that from 1929 until 1939. when I went into the Army, I was associated with the transport industry and the trade union movement. One of my earliest experiences as a young fellow was of going with an experienced trade union official to see an employer to argue for certain rates of pay and conditions. This employer, who owned about 10 vehicles, said, "You are quite right. You are asking for a fair wage which I would be prepared to pay, but I do not think it would be economically possible while such and such persons are operating individual vehicles and are undercutting"—

Mr. David Renton: Was this unfortunate experience prior to the 1933 Act coming into operation in 1934? Further, was it before the hours of work were laid down by statute, etc.?

Mr. Mellish: I am coming to that point because it establishes part of the case which I am putting to the Minister. The decent employer was unable to sign a trade union agreement because his work was being taken away by individuals who undercut him—the owner-driver who could drive his vehicle from here to Liverpool and make a certain small profit, and who was prepared to bring back a load at a rate which would merely pay for the petrol and not result in any profit. No employer in that industry could compete against that kind of thing, and the Government of the day had to pass legislation to do what they could to remedy that state of affairs.
From 1934 onwards we inside the trade union movement found that the fierce competition between employers in order to undercut rates and give a so-called better service resulted in great efforts being necessary all the time in an attempt to get enforcement officers to do their job. The law was being constantly broken. No one denies that. It is a difficult job if a man is working for an employer who is prepared to do that sort of thing.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. G. Wilson: I am intrigued by the argument of the hon. Member. Has he noticed what has happened at the present time? Only one in 20 of the lorries on the road has been operated by British Road Services. What is happening to the others? Do not the trade unions see that the law is enforced on them, or is it being broken?

Mr. Mellish: The law is still being broken in some instances. But as far as British Road Services is concerned, we have not been able to prove that they indulge in the sort of practices which went on before the war, or which are being applied by private individuals today.
I do not suggest that the Minister wishes to see these practices return. I do not think that hon. Members opposite want that. But if we are to make certain that they do not return we need a big army of enforcement officers. The Minister proposes to bring about a return to the conditions which existed before the war. I would put this to him. With regard to trunk services we are asking for the B.R.S. to be given more vehicles. We feel—I know I speak for the trade unions in this respect—that if more vehicles are controlled by the B.R.S. more drivers will have decent wages and conditions of work.
The Minister is heading for trouble if he believes that these private individuals will buy lorries in cut-throat competition and will not be compelled, by the very nature of the profit motive, to break the law consistently and constantly. We are inviting them to do so, because that is the type of private enterprise, evidently, that the Minister wishes to see developed. Does he want that type of competition? Is it in the best interests of the Conservative Party to have that type of competition? I would ask him to look at the


matter from our point of view, and to realise that if the B.R.S. get more vehicles one thing he can be certain of is that in that section of the industry the workers will enjoy decent wages and conditions.

Mr. Norman Cole: I hope that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the argument he advanced. I wish to remind the Committee that the purpose in bringing forward this Bill is to de-nationalise the road haulage industry, especially long-distance haulage. To give more vehicles to the British Transport Commission would defeat the purpose of the Bill.
Hon. Members opposite have put forward a variety of reasons why they wish for an increase over the figure of six-fifths for the Transport Commission. The figure of six-fifths may be a figure which was arrived at after a certain amount of consideration, but there does not seem to be any greater sanctity for twelve-fifths than for six-fifths. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) said he wanted to see competition. What I would put to hon. Members opposite is that for years it has been admitted that the whole reason for the 1947 Act was to constitute a monopoly in this country to give the British Transport Commission a chance to pay its way and provide a decent service. How then, by an attenuated service, is it expected that the Commission, under non-monopolistic conditions, would be able to compete with private enterprise, if it is not able to do so today?
I am entitled to ask the hon. Member for The Hartlepools whether he is prepared to see more public money lost in the future by this attenuated service than is being lost by the monopoly at the present time?

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The hon. Member has referred several times to a "monopoly." Is he quite correct in describing the undertakings of the Road Haulage Executive as a monopoly? Have there not been permanent holders of C hiring margin licences who have continued to operate, and who have in fact cut the rates of the Road Haulage Executive, and is it not to them that the Executive have lost traffics?

Mr. Cole: I am grateful for that intervention. The principle still applies, but I am prepared to take the point. There are over 800,000 C licences, and a considerable number of people operating on short-distance permits, but the hon. Member will not deny that the 1947 Act was designed to set up a monopoly in long-distance haulage work for the British Transport Commission.
My point is that if there are all these difficulties of integration, if there are difficulties, both as regards conditions and charges, how will there be a greater possibility of the British Transport Commission, with a far less number of vehicles—or even with a greater number than the six-fifths provided by the Bill—making a higher degree of profit, or a less degree of loss, than at the moment?
I suggest to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, irrespective of other reasons which have been given, that giving the Commission more vehicles will result in a greater loss of public money. While hon. Members will be desirous of allowing the British Transport Commission to retain those vehicles necessary to carry out their proper service, and the duties laid on them by this Bill, that should be the limit.
The 1947 Act was designed to nationalise transport. This Bill is designed to denationalise long-distance transport. I suggest that we cannot get the best of both worlds, and that we must adopt a policy one way or the other. We are not going to pass a Bill for the de-nationalising of long-distance transport and at the same time try to make a half-hearted effort to increase the service of the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) suggested that a monopoly of long-distance road haulage had been preserved for the British Transport Commission. I only wish that was so. Some of the difficulties which have arisen have been due to the fact that the nationalisation of long-distance road haulage was not complete under the 1947 Act. The hon. Member has evidence of that from his own leader. The Prime Minister confirmed it in a speech in his constituency, when he said that the number of vehicles nationalised was only 40,000 out of more than a million, and what was all the fuss about?
The Minister has given us a number of figures which the Committee could not


be expected to digest at once. They need a considerable amount of study. I think he approaches this problem of the number of vehicles to be left with the British Transport Commission entirely from the wrong angle. He looks at this as a return to 1948. Why 1948? Simply because that was the date of nationalisation. But what is the figure for 1948 which must be preserved? Why must we go back to that position and ignore completely developments which have taken place since 1st January, 1948? The Minister regards this simply as a return to that situation and does not look at the matter as he should, that is the effect that a return to the 1948 figure plus 20 per cent. will have on the present services.
The important consideration is to consider the effect on the present services which are serving the trader and the community of restricting the Transport Commission vehicles to the 1948 figure plus one-fifth. As far as I understand the position from the figures which the Minister gave, it is that on 1st January, 1948, the number of vehicles which came over to the Transport Commission as a result of the acquisitions was 3,899. If we add one-fifth, the Transport Commission will be allowed to retain 4,678. That is the figure which the Minister gave.
But Pickfords are operating 3,091 vehicles and the Road Haulage Services Parcels and Smalls Division is operating 3,400 vehicles—I believe that they are operating rather more because the number fluctuates. The total figure given by the Minister is therefore 6,491. That means that the Transport Commission has to divest itself of 1,812 vehicles as a result of this policy. The Minister gave us some figures, and this one can be worked out from them. The Transport Commission will have to sell 1,812 vehicles. They are vehicles which are engaged in the Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division or in the parcels and smalls services.
By the sale of these vehicles these two services will be disrupted. They will not he able to continue the comprehensive national services they now provide. That applies specially to the parcels division. The Minister said that it meant that they would be reduced from 3,400 to 2,182 vehicles which, he said, was 63 per cent. of their present number of vehicles. If they operate a national service with 3,400 vehicles and they are to be left with only

63 per cent. of that number, they cannot then operate a similar service.
A national service is operated today. I have in my hand a list of places to which the Road Haulage Executive offers a service in the transport of parcels and smalls. It includes the names of every town and village in the United Kingdom between any two of which a service can be provided. These vehicles cover about 13,000 places and offer a service between any two of them. Some 250,000 consignments are made daily. How are these consignments to be catered for if the division is reduced to 63 per cent. of its present strength? It cannot be done.
The Minister is undermining the parcels service, disrupting it, breaking it up. The same can be said about Pickfords. The Minister gave figures about the vehicles which are employed. He said that their heavies would be left with 47 per cent. Heavy haulage is a specialised traffic and Pick fords has a big share of it. By reducing their vehicles to 47 per cent. of the present number, the Minister is substantially reducing their share of the traffic. It happens that suitable vehicles are not available to other hauliers. Therefore, this service will also be affected.
8.15 p.m.
The Minister gave figures about Pick-fords showing that the number of ordinary load carriers taken over in 1948 was 701 and that there are now 841. How are 841 ordinary load carriers to compete with the balance of vehicles operating long-distance traffic? That is what we did not understand from the Minister's remarks. In November, and again last week, the Minister indicated that by allowing the Transport Commission to retain six-fifths of the numbers it had in 1948 we should ensure that the Commission would be the largest road haulage organisation in the country. He implied that it would be able to compete with private enterprise because it would have this large number of vehicles. I do not know what he meant by that
On the figures he has given today, the Transport Commission will have only this very small number of vehicles engaged in ordinary road haulage. Let us consider the matter in this way. There are about 40,000 vehicles operated by the Road Haulage Executive. Of those, on the Minister's figures, about 4,600 are to be retained by the Transport Commission.


That leaves about 35,000 vehicles to be sold. If purchasers are found those 35,000 vehicles will operate under private enterprise. The only ordinary vehicles owned by the Commission and comparable to those 35,000 vehicles operated by private enterprise will be these 841 ordinary load carriers.
Where is the competition there? Where is this large road haulage undertaking competing with private enterprise? It simply does not exist, and the Minister knows it full well. I do not know whether he deliberately misled hon. Members when he made his statement last November. I think that at that time he did not understand the position. He did not understand what the result of this Bill would be.
The Minister tried to get out of this dilemma on 3rd December when we pressed him on this subject. He made it clear that the Transport Commission could not retain both the special traffics division and the feeder services. I think he will agree with me when I say that it would have been better to say that they could not retain both their Pickfords (Special Traffics) Division and their Parcels and Smalls Division and at the same time carry on a long-distance road haulage business outside their specialised traffics. He said last week in this connection:
The Commission must make up their minds: it is not for me either in the Bill or in any other way to tell the Commission what vehicles they ought to withdraw from the auction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1952: Vol. 508, c. 1632.]
Clause 4 (2) makes it clear that they cannot substitute for these vehicles other vehicles because they have to be:
comparable, as respects the size, nature and quality of the vehicles comprised therein, to a fleet made up of the vehicles so owned.
The Minister made a small concession. He said that this was rather rigid, and that he was looking at the provision to see whether there could be greater flexibility. He said that he would consider the matter before Report stage.
There is no reason for that provision to be in the Bill at all, and I hope that. after due consideration of the arguments advanced, the Minister will consider dropping it from the Bill. As long as it remains, it will be impossible for the

British Transport Commission to compete in ordinary road haulage with private enterprise—and that is a result which the Minister probably wants to achieve anyway. As long as the limitation of six-fifths is retained, it will not be possible for the British Transport Commission to continue the efficient and economic parcels service which they provide today or the Pickfords service in the comprehensive manner in which it is operated at the moment.
In his last intervention the Minister made the position even worse. He said that where branch railway lines had already been closed, the vehicles which provided the commercial road haulage in place of the railway freight traffic would come out of the six-fifths. That means that even out of the small number of vehicles carrying on ordinary road haulage, some must be retained for conducting traffic which was formerly carried by rail. The Commission will be hamstrung on all sides by restrictions imposed in this Clause which I think are unnecessary.
They are unnecessary because there is already ample provision by which the Commission can be limited in the number of vehicles which they can operate. In the first place, Ministerial permission is required before the Commission can purchase a unit. That permission is necessary if the Commission wish to form a company to take over one of the units which they are offering for sale. That Ministerial consent is required under the subsection which we are discussing, 4 (2), where it is stated that,
—the Commission may, if the Minister gives his consent, make over to any company.—
The second provision which will limit the activities of the Commission, under the Bill in its present form, is the requirement that the Commission must obtain licences for any additional vehicles which they wish to operate. There is, therefore, no need for the restriction about which I complain. If protection is felt to be necessary, then ample protection can be given to the community through the existing provisions of the Bill.
This rigid requirement which is imposed will only handicap the natural development of transport in this country. The Transport Commission will mainly be the railways. and if they are limited


by the Bill from increasing their road haulage fleets as they consider necessary, either for carrying on the roads traffic which it is more economic to carry by road, or for other purposes, then the natural development which has taken place since 1928 will be brought to an end. In effect, the Bill puts the railways back to their position of before 1928. It was in 1928 that the railways obtained permission to engage in road haulage, and from that date they began to develop their road haulage activities. Under the Bill they will be restricted in the extent to which they can operate and thereby prevented from developing in the way in which they were permitted to develop after 1928.
Those are the reasons for which we have tabled these Amendments. We hope that even at this stage the Minister will give them further consideration. There is, however, one final point. The Minister has confirmed that the Commission can apply for additional licences. In my opinion, that makes absolute nonsense of the Bill. It is ridiculous that the Commission should be compelled to sell all of its vehicles beyond a small number, and then, as soon as they have done so. be permitted to purchase new vehicles and go to the licensing authority for a licence to operate—and of course pay more for the new vehicles than the figure at which the old vehicles stand on their books and probably far more than they will get for their old vehicles at the sales. I cannot see the logic or sense of that provision.

It is one of the craziest features of this stupid and muddled Bill.

I ask the Minister seriously to think over the arguments which have been put forward and to give real consideration to the proposals being made from this side of the Committee. I feel that he is hiding behind the Guillotine so as not to give the consideration to which we are entitled and not to make concessions.

Mr. Hargreaves: He has no need to argue.

Mr. Davies: It is usual, in Standing Committees upstairs, for there to be a certain amount of give and take. Time and again the Minister offers to reconsider matters and promises to bring forward Amendments on the Report stage. This is the second day in Committee on the Bill, and the only concession which the Minister has attempted to make was to one of his hon. Friends about T.U.C. representation, which the trade unions in any event do not want, and a statement this afternoon that he might be able to introduce a little more flexibility into one subsection. The Minister has taken advantage of the Guillotine and is not giving the Amendments put forward by this side of the Committee the consideration which they deserve.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the end of line 23, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275: Noes, 257.

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[8.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Davidson, Viscountess


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Deedes, W. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bullard, D. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcoln


Banks, Col. C.
Burden, F. F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Barber, Anthony
Campbell, Sir David
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Barlow, Sir John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Duthie, W. S.


Baxter, A. B.
Carson, Hon E.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Erroll, F. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fell, A.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Finlay, Graeme


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Cole, Norman
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Colegate, W. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Conant, Mai. R. J. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Birch, Nigel
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fort, R.


Bishop, F. P.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Foster, John


Black, C. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)


Bossom, A. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Crouch, R. F.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Brains, B. R.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gammons, L. D.




Garner-Evans, E. H
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robson-Brown, W.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloy[...]
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold


Godber, J. B.
McAdden, S. J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
McCallum, Major D.
Russell, R. S.


Gough, C. F. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKibbin, A. J.
Scott, R. Donald


Grimond, J.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Shepherd, William


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Speir R. M.


Harvey-Watt, Sir George
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hay, John
Harpies, A. E.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Heath, Edward
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Stevens, G. P.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maude, Angus
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Storey, S.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hollis, M. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Studholme, H. G.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Summers, G. S.


Holt, A. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nicholls, Harmar
Tenting, W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Horobin, I. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tilney, John


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nutting, Anthony
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hutchison, Lt,-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Odey, G. W.
Turton, R. H.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
vane, W. M. F.


Johnson, Eric (Blackleg)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vosper, D. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wade, D. W.


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lambton, Viscount
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Leather, E. H. C.
Powell, J. Enoch
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Linstead, H. N.
Raikes, H. V.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Redmayne, M.
York, C.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Remnant, Hon. P.



Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Renton, D. L. M.



Longden, Gilbert
Robertson, Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Low, A. R. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Wills.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Carmichael, J.


Albu, A. H.
Bing, G. H. C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blackburn, F.
Champion, A. J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blenkinsop, A.
Chapman, W. D


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Blyton, W. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Boardman, H.
Clunie, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Coldrick, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowles, F. G.
Collick, P. H.


Baird, J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Corbel, Mrs. Freda


Balfour, A.
Brockway, A. F.
Cove, W. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bartley, P.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Bence, C. R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Helper)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Benn, Wedgwood
Burke. W. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Benson, G.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Daines, P.


Beswick, F.
Callaghan, L J
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H







Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Keenan, W
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C W
Ross, William


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Delargy, H. J
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edelman, M.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S )


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacColl, J. E.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McInnes, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Steele, T.


Ewart, R.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R


Field, W. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J


Fienburgh, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Swingler, S. T.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. 0.


Follick, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Foot, M. M.
Mayhew, C. P
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Fraser. Thomas (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, C. R
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gaitskell, RI. Hon. H. T. N.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Glanville, James

Harry (Clayton)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thornton E.



Morley,
Thornton, E. (Farnworth)


Greenwood, Rt. fin. Arthur (Wakefield)

Timmons, J.



Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)



Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Tomney, F.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Motley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Murray, J. D.
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Nally, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsaver)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.



Hannan, W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Weitzman, D.


Hardy, E. A
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hargreaves, A.
Orbach, M.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Harrison, J (Nottingham, E.)
Oswald, T.
West, D. G.


Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pannell, Charles
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Pargiter, G. A
Wigg, George


Holman, P.
Parker, J
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A e


Houghton, Douglas
Paton, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hubbard, T. F.
Pearson, A.
Willey, F. T.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pearl, T. F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Porter, G.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Joseph T. (Weethoughton)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Janner, B.
Reeves, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Jay, Rt. Hon. D P. T.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wyatt, W. L.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Yates, V. F


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.



Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Richards. R
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I beg to move in page 7, line 23. at the end, to insert:
and for the purposes of this proviso motor vehicles shall be deemed to include motor vehicles brought into use by the Commission subsequent to the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-eight to replace horse-drawn vehicles in use at that date.

This Amendment follows on part of the speech made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that we had progressed even since 1947 when the Transport Act was placed on the Statute Book and that many motor vehicles had replaced horse-drawn


vehicles. The purpose of this Amendment is to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister so that later, if he is not prepared to accept this Amendment, he may be able to make such alteration as will take this fact into account.
Looking at the annual Report of the British Transport Commission, we find that at the beginning of 1948 the Railway Executive had 26,340 horse-drawn vehicles and at the end of 1948 they had only 12,407. That is less than half. Taking into account the companies which were taken over, like Wordie and Co., Carter Paterson and others, we find that at the beginning of 1948 they had 1,867 horse-drawn vehicles, and at the end of 1951 the Road Haulage Executive possessed only 990 horse-drawn vehicles, so, in rough figures, at the beginning of 1948 the number of horse-drawn vehicles owned by the Commission was 28,000 and at the end of 1951 it was 13,000, which is obviously a very big difference.
We want an assurance from the Minister that the motor vehicles owned by the Executive will not be taken into account in the six-fifths mentioned in the Bill. I put a question to the Minister during his speech the other day, and he gave me that impression, but I think that he ought to make this clear. Another thing is that much of the work which has been done by the collection and delivery services of the Railway Executive has now been transferred to the Road Haulage Executive. I do not know how the six-fifths has been arrived at, but it is quite apparent that it does not take into account what has happened regarding the transfer from horse-drawn to motor vehicles.
The Minister has told us that the closing of branch lines has also to be taken into consideration in arriving at the six-fifths, and no doubt many other things as well. I trust that he will take note of the purpose of this Amendment, and that he will make reference to it either now or later. I do not want to take up more time of the Committee because my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) made reference to this matter in his speech when winding up on the last Amendment, and we ought to have a little time on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"

for a reply to that speech from the Minister.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to supplement in a word or two what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has said. The genesis of this Amendment arises from the fact that in Scotland there were three carting companies which worked in co-operation with the railways—Mutter, Howie and Co., Cowan and Co. and Wordie and Co. One of them was partly owned by the railways and the other two were independent. The families connected with those organisations have all disappeared, and just before the war the railway companies were about to take them over.
The point that has been raised by my hon. Friend obviously does not apply only to Scotland. My hon. Friend has given figures covering the whole country, and this is a matter which the Ministry should consider. We thought that this was a matter which perhaps he had not taken into account in settling the six-fifths. In Scotland there has been a considerable amount of integration. At some of the stations in the smaller areas, carting and delivery services connected with the railway have been taken over by the road service in order not to have duplicate services running, and at others it is done by the railway company as a matter of economy and convenience.
8.45 p.m.
The points we want to make clear are these. Are the vehicles which have been put into operation by the railways to replace the horse-drawn vehicles of these three companies, and similar companies in England, to be cut down by this six-fifths rule? Are those which are in possession of the railways now to be interfered with by the operation of the six-fifths rule? The second point is: Are the motor vehicles which have replaced these horses, and which have been put into operation by the road haulage organisation in order to carry on the work previously carried on by this purely railway service, to suffer from the six-fifths rule?
The purpose of the Amendment, although it may not be properly worded, is to ensure that these vehicles can be considered apart altogether from the question of normal road haulage. They are part of the railway services, and always


have been. Even though the services may be carried out by road haulage, they are still railway services being done by the road haulage organisation, and it would seriously inconvenience the railways in their collection and delivery if these vehicles were cut off and an interruption made of their service by the operation of the six-fifths rule.
I am quite sure that the Government do not intend that to happen, and I should be very glad to know that they are prepared to look into this matter to see whether these vehicles can be safeguarded, apart altogether from the argument we have had about the six-fifths rule.

Mr. Braithwaite: May I respond to the request of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) that I should reply as early as possible in order that there might perhaps be an opportunity for using the time in discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? I say immediately to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that the Government are not unsympathetic to the objective here, which is to permit the motor vehicles which may be transferred to companies controlled by the Commission to be increased by an amount equivalent to the amount of motor transport which has been brought into use by the Commission since 1st January, 1948, to replace the horse-drawn vehicles.
I want to deploy to the Committee, as shortly as I can, the administrative difficulties which we should encounter if we were to accept the Amendment in its present form. The proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 4 limits, and is intended to limit, the amount of road transport now forming part of the property used by the Road Haulage Executive which the Commission may retain for use by their companies to the equivalent of the amount of transport owned by the road haulage companies controlled by the former railway and canal companies which were taken over by the Commission in 1948, plus the allowance of 20 per cent. which we have debated earlier today for natural growth which might have taken place since then, and for the small and less than controlling interests which the railway companies had in some road haulage undertakings when they were transferred to the Commission.
It is not intended to cover the road transport held by the former railway and

canal companies themselves. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulty of computing with any accuracy the increase which might have taken place, but, bearing in mind the small general increase in size of the total goods fleet of the country since vesting day in 1948, the 20 per cent. seemed to us adequate, and there does not seem much justification for increasing it as set forth in this Amendment.
The Commission have replaced a considerable portion of their horse-drawn vehicles by mechanised transport, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) reminded us earlier today. But the great bulk of this is operated by the Railway Executive as part of their collection and delivery services, which, of course, are not covered by these proposals. The Commission are not required under the Bill to dispose of this property, and replacement within a part of the Commission's undertaking which is not being disposed of cannot be accepted as a proper ground for justifying retention of more of the property of the Road Haulage Executive.
As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, there has, of course, to a certain extent been mechanisation of horse-drawn vehicles within the organisation of the Road Haulage Executive itself. But this is so small that we believe it can be considered to be covered by the 20 per cent. allowance which is already permitted under paragraph 1 of the proviso. Most of the horse-drawn vehicles owned by the haulage companies at 1st January, 1948, and which were controlled by the former railways were transferred from the Road Haulage Executive to British Railways for their collection and delivery services.
The difficulty in which we find ourselves is that it would be extremely difficult to identify vehicles being used to replace horse-drawn vehicles which were in use up to four years ago. Replacement vehicles which might consist of articulated units or the mechanical horses and trailers which have become popular would be used for various purposes and for different purposes at different times.
But unless the individual vehicles could be identified it would be impossible to apply paragraph 2 of the proviso which requires, as the hon. Member will see, that vehicles made over to the Commission's


companies shall be comparable as respects size, nature and quality to a fleet made up of the vehicles owned by the former railway-controlled road haulage companies. If the Amendment were accepted in its present form such a proviso would be deemed to include vehicles used to replace horse-drawn vehicles.
To summarise, this is our trouble. The great bulk of the vehicles are now with the railways and will in any case be retained by them. We had thought that the extra 20 per cent., namely, the six-fifths formula, which was the subject of discussion on the previous Amendment, would have adequately covered the replacement of horse-drawn vehicles, but, in view of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, reinforced as it has been from the Opposition Front Bench, we will have another look at this to see whether some extra allowance should be made.
It will obviously have to be an arbitrary figure because I do not think it would be at all possible to assess with any accuracy what the figure would be. There would have to be some global figure to cover this particular point, and I will assure the hon. Gentleman that between now and the Report stage we will examine the possibility of such a provision being inserted if it is administratively practical so to do.

Mr. Steele: Quite frankly, we are getting on. This is the second time today that first the Minister and then the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that he will have another look at something. It is a pity we have the Guillotine as, otherwise, the Minister could look at a lot more. However, on the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Callaghan: It is clear that we are to have no time at all in which to discuss the general merits of this Clause in the six minutes that are left to us. I really do not know why the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) should regard that as a subject for mirth. The noble Lord's capacity for absorption may be exhausted, but let me say to him that the Govern-

ment's capacity for punishment seems unlimited.
The pummelling they took from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) just now has obviously decided the Minister to seek refreshment. I do not blame him. He has been here all day, and has done very well. We make no criticism of him or of the length of time he has spent in the Chamber, although we think that the quality of some of his replies could have been far better.
Let us be quite clear about the purpose of the Clause. The intention is to destroy, once and for all, the long-distance road haulage undertaking which has been built up by the Transport Commission into an efficient service, and to leave them with a rump which will be fewer than 5,000 vehicles out of the 40,000 which are now running on our roads.
The rump of fewer than 5,000 will be concerned as to a very large proportion not with long-distance road haulage at all, but with comparatively short-distance work, or with special traffics of the type that we well know. In the plethora of figures which the Minister read out to us earlier, it was clear that the great number of vehicles which would be left to the Commission would be those now belonging to the Special Traffics (Pickford's) Division.
The Clause, which has been inserted into the Bill as an afterthought by the Minister, does no more than partially redeem the gross mistake which was made by the Government in the original White Paper and in the Minister's first speech in May of this year, when he told us that it was the intention of the Government not even to permit the Transport Commission to retain the vehicles that the railways had had before nationalisation.
The Clause does not redeem that omission in any sense of the word. In our view, it does not redeem the impression that the Minister certainly left with us on this side of the Committee, and with many people who are in the road haulage industry, that the Transport Commission should be able to indulge in competitive road haulage enterprises with the private road hauliers.
The Minister is keeping them out of that field. I do not blame him, because


he knows that the Transport Commission have never feared competition from the private road hauliers if they can have their hands free. It is because he is frightened to put to the test the prospect of a public road service competing against a private road service that he has refused the Amendments that we have put up which would have made this possible.
When the benches opposite declaim in future, as they have declaimed so often in the past, that private competition can defeat public enterprise, let it always be remembered against them that on the occasion when we proposed that there should be competition between public and private road haulage the Minister, speaking on their behalf, declined the challenge and refused to allow public road haulage to compete with private road haulage; and instead, has put private road haulage into a licensed, privileged, semi-monopoly, without outside competition. [Interruption.] The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has made few interventions in this debate, but he now says that that is not true. Let me recount what is true.
Every vehicle that goes on to the road will have to have a licence. No vehicle can go on to the road unless it gets a licence from the licensing authority. If the Under-Secretary cares to read Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9—I hope he will read them —he will see that it is impossible for anybody to get a licence unless he proves a certain and considerable need for the service to be undertaken. No one can run in competition with him unless they get a licence. Is not that a privileged position? Is it not a semi-monopoly?
The only party which is consistent is the Liberal Party. They do not want licensing. This is a system which even the benches behind the Government do not uphold, because they realise what chaos it will cause. It is true that the Government are proposing to put private road haulage back into a privileged, semi-monopolistic position, by virtue of their enactment of this Clause. They are simply refusing the opportunity that we are proposing to give to the Transport Commission to be in a position to compete with them.
For the third time I find myself unable to develop an argument fully because of the Guillotine which has been imposed on

this Clause. It has made discussion farcical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has said, the Minister is able to rely upon the Guillotine to escape from answering points that he knows are unanswerable. We can, of course, get no answer to the short speech I have made, which has been only five minutes in length, and which contains points which the Government have never attempted to answer throughout the whole of this argument.

It being Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: No Division. even after that speech?

Mr. Callaghan: If the noble Lord thinks that by jeering he can persuade us into voting, I can tell him that we intend not to be cajoled into voting when we do not intend to do so, not because we are not opposed to the Clause, as the noble Lord well knows, but because we are arguing against a Guillotine.
The noble Lord may well prefer tramping through the Lobby and getting his automatic, machine-like majority; we prefer to spend the time arguing in order that we may convey to the Committee and to the public the weaknesses of this Bill. The noble Lord has sat here throughout the debate and he knows very well that we indicated in the early stages that we did not intend to divide the Committee, even though we disagree with the Government, except on certain points.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. Is not this speech, Sir Charles, more applicable to a Motion to report Progress than to moving an Amendment?

The Chairman: I thought the hon. Gentleman was replying to the noble Lord and I think the noble Lord rather deserved it.

Mr. Callaghan: I will certainly move the Amendment now, Sir Charles, but it is the first time that I have known the noble Lord give it without being able to take it.

Clause 5.—(DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY OTHERWISE THAN IN TRANSPORT UNITS.)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, to leave out subsection (2).
The purpose of Clause 5 and of this Amendment is to require the Commission to dispose of property that may not be part of operable transport units if the Minister gives them directions to do so. The Clause is noteworthy because it is concerned with selling off the remnants of the undertaking that are not sold as transport units. We take particular exception to this Clause which puts the Minister in a position to require the Commission to sell any property that he may think should be sold otherwise than as part of the existing road haulage undertaking.
The position as I see it is that we shall have a number of transport units to which other items of property will be attached. I understand that "property" under the definition of this Bill is not a transport unit, but the actual physical buildings which may attach to a unit. Property may be the stores, the equipment, the machinery with which vehicles are repaired. It may be central works depots. I do not know whether the Minister has a full appreciation of the property that has been built up under the British Road Services during the last two years, but I can give him one example.
In my own constituency of South Cardiff there is a property made up of a first-class depot with loading bays and discharging bays, where trucks may come straight into the bays and run out again. Quite apart from the first-class storage accommodation, there are adequate warehouses which put many of the docks and ports to shame. When at the Ministry of Transport I made it my duty to visit every one of our major ports and I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will try to do the same—

Mr. Braithwaite: I have

Mr. Callaghan: I saw a great deal of the dock and harbour accommodation and I say to the Minister of Transport that some of the depots and bays that have been built by the British Road Services are second to none.

Mr. Woodburn: All over the country.

Mr. Callaghan: They have built up a series of depots throughout the country to

facilitate the swift interchange of goods coming in from one central depot and going to another part of the country, and the whole of the resources are there.
In other depots—indeed, in parts of the same depot —one can see office accommodation that has been built up which is an essential part of the undertaking, where there are traffic clerks watching the hourly flow of traffic coming into them, by teleprinter messages and by telephone from all over the country. One can walk down the little aisles and see a number of clerks sitting at the windows while the drivers of the lorries come up and report to them, get their orders for the loads, and away they go to discharge them or to do whatever is necessary.
In other depots, and, indeed, in parts of the same depot, one may go round and see the workshops that have been built up there and the paint shops where the lorries are painted. Everyone who has seen the lorries on the road will know that in their present condition they do credit to any public haulage undertaking. The public are certainly proud of what they have seen of the lorries as they run up and down the roads; they have never been in such splendid condition. The mechanical condition of these vehicles is overhauled, and there are workshops with skilled fitters who rebuild the lorries when they are broken down.
These are, in fact, complete mechanical units, both for dealing with the commercial side of the traffic and for repairing and overhauling the vehicles. In many cases they are worth tens of thousands of pounds. In one depot, I have seen stores laid out for any type of vehicle that they may be called upon to repair and which are worth over £20,000, and I am sure that that was by no means an exceptional case. Central purchasing and storage has proved to be an economy in the running of these vehicles. That is the sort of property that, I take, it is meant by subsection (2).
What we take exception to—and I tell the right hon. Gentleman this quite frankly; and although it is customary to say that we do not mind the present Minister but are thinking of his successors, I am thinking of the present Minister—is that the present Minister, with the bias he has shown against the British Road Services, should have this immense


power in his hands without any hindrance whatever—to require the Commission, without argument, to dispose of any of this property that he thinks fit; and under the subsection the Commission are bound to adhere to his directions and to carry them out.
The Minister has not shown that he has any conspicuous love for the Commission—perhaps he does not need to have it. He has not shown that he has any particular understanding of the job that is being carried out. As he himself has said, there are still nearly 5,000 vehicles, quite apart from the collection and delivery that the Transport Commission will be able to carry out.
Why should the Minister arrogate unto himself the power to tell the Commission to dispose of the property that may be required for the maintenance of these vehicles? How does he know what will be required? How can we rely upon him acting in fairness to the Transport Commission? We cannot do so in present circumstances from the attitude that he has shown towards them in the Bill. We feel, therefore, that there is every case for taking out these powers that the Minister has to require the Commission to dispose of property that is valuable to them, that they may need to use in connection with their services, and that they certainly have built up in a way that many of these depots are a model from which the rest of commerce and industry can take lessons. That is as public enterprise should be.
It has never been the view of my hon. Friends on this side that public enterprise should lag behind private enterprise. We have always taken the view that given the capital resources and the capital investment they should be able to get out in front, and no Member on the other side who approaches this question objectively or fairly can deny that the property that has been built up, the mechanical workshops that have been erected and the traffic control units that have been designed, are in advance of anything that private enterprise has to show. [Interruption.] I did not hear the intervention of the hon. Member.

Mr. Renton: I suggest that as the hon. Member has called me to my feet he should go to see some of the shops. I could take him to one in Peterborough which leaves a great deal to be desired.

Mr. Callaghan: I am in no doubt about that. I am not saying that, 12 months after they acquired the last miserable workshop at a street corner, they have got the whole thing correct. It was not my job to suggest that after they took over these properties, which hon. Members opposite know were left in a semi-derelict condition with the last bit of equipment taken out which could be taken out, the Transport Commission could get the job put right in 12 months.
What I said, as the hon. Member would have known if he had been here, was that in cases where they have built these new units they are a model to private enterprise in this country. The Minister is taking power to require the Commission to sell off these properties in the interests of his friends and those supporting him. No one is supporting him except private road hauliers; no moderate opinion in this country supports the Government on this Bill. Let there be no doubt about that. It is certainly true that trade and commerce did not support the method by which the Government propose to carry this out.
We feel very deeply about some of the things the Minister is doing by this Bill and this is one of the more disgraceful. He should not seek to take power by his automatic majority in this Committee to compel the Transport Commission to divest themselves of properties which may be of use to them, which they want, which have been of public service and which can continue to be of great use to the 5,000 vehicles they have to service id the future.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There has been a great deal of sound and fury and thumping of the Despatch Box by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), much of it not very directly related to the Amendments on the Order Paper. But it is important that the Committee should be brought back to recollect that the organisation and the property of the Road Haulage Executive do not exist for its own sake. They exist for the sake of the trader and the public which they serve.
It is all too easy to forget in the laudation of the clerks sitting at their little pigeon holes interviewing drivers that the person who really counts is the person who dispatches and receives goods. That


is why, when the hon. Member was speaking, I found my hand moving towards a couple of letters I have received in the last few days from people who use British Road Services. Here is one, from a representative of a firm covering nine counties and London North of the River:
the majority of my customers will not have delivery by British Road Transport … they have told me that if we (the firm) could not deliver … to send goods by private enterprise carriers (their own words) and that if we used British Road Transport they would refuse the goods and place their business elsewhere.
Here is the man actually handling the goods.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Member be good enough to tell us what grounds he adduces for this?

Mr. Powell: Yes, I am perfectly willing to show the correspondence to the hon. Member behind the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I have read it. This is the bona fide statement of a trade representative stating his experience with regard to British Road Services. I have here from a constituent a letter from which the following is a material paragraph—

Mr. Callaghan: It has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Powell: No, but, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East pronounced a eulogium on the British Road Services unrelated to their power to serve the public under this Amendment, perhaps the Committee might be brought back for a few minutes to look at it from the point of view of the user.
Here is one user:
On Tuesday last a parcel measuring approximately 20 in. by 20 in. by 23 in. and of a fair weight was handed to British Road Services…in London for delivery to my private address. This was delivered mid-morning today.
That was Friday.
The road distance from London to Wolverhampton is given as 121½ miles, and allowing a few extra miles for the point of collection in London and delivery in Wolverhampton, it has taken four days to cover the distance.
Let us remember that we are dealing with the consumer of transport services and not with the theoretical beauty of the organisation which has been elaborated

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward Davies: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to sound and fury. We are accustomed, when he gets up, to listening, not to a cogent and reasonable argument, but to mere emotion inspired by some case which is not founded on reason. The last case he quoted and made great play about was of a firm which had experienced some delay in the delivery of its consignment. From my 30 years' experience of the privately-owned railways I would say that that is not exactly an innovation.
Like many of my colleagues who for a lifetime have been in privately-owned industry. I have unfortunately had to explain from time to time what has happened to a parcel of goods that has gone astray. In any concern handling millions of packages per day and per week that kind of thing obviously happens because of lost labels, wrong addresses, congestion of traffic and a hundred other reasons. To adduce that as a reason why the Transport Commission should be required to sell its properties is ridiculous.

Mr. Powell: Is it more ridiculous than to adduce a row of clerks sitting at windows interviewing drivers?

Mr. Davies: I am coming to the row of clerks sitting at windows.
We agree with the hon. Member that the primary consideration in transport is the good interests of the country. as we constantly stress on these benches. The economic progress of the country is our consideration, and that is paramount even over any syndicalist claims which some sections may think they ought to advance. We have constantly stressed that, and there is no quarrel between us. But surely the hon. Member does not say that the wellbeing of the country means that we must not have good depots up and down the country, that there must not be sound organisation, that we must not clear up some of the festering hovels which purported to be the clearing houses for some of these pirates of the road in days gone by.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I have had an opportunity of inspecting some of these road haulage undertakings and their depots, and I say that the work that has been done over the last two years


reflects great praise on the organisation. Anyone who has had any experience in commerce of large-scale organisation must know the complicated nature and difficulties of the problem with which they have had to deal in gathering up these bits and pieces of a desperate industry such as the road transport industry was, in which there were so many small undertakings. In terms of making cohesive and coherent their system of bookkeeping, methods of repairing vehicles, the concentration of traffic, the nominated loading system by which they can despatch loads to given points for the benefit of the traders of the country by giving them expeditious service, the settlement of claims, first-class commercial representation giving—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I think both sides have had a fair exchange and that we might now come back to the Amendment which is before the Committee.

Mr. Davies: I beg your pardon, Mr. Hopkin Morris, if I have strayed too far. But as you said, I was a little led away.
The Amendment seeks to restrain the Minister from exercising the power of dispersing the property at present held by the Commission. We are endeavouring to advance good arguments, although they may seem a little remote in favour of the property being retained by the Commission. It would be a national calamity if the excellent work done by these depots should be frittered away in this fashion. If the traffic of the country is to continue in the economic and expeditious way we would desire, there have to be clearing houses and depots. Why should the Minister be invested with arbitrary powers to wind up these concerns when we are beginning to appreciate the benefit of them? They may be of value even to private undertakers.
Surely the Minister does not want to return to the old days when parcel traffic was distributed over various towns? At what price will he dispose of this property? I hope he will listen to what has been said by my hon. Friends and go very slowly in requiring the Commission to hand back these properties. Will he have a Dutch auction of them as he is proposing to do with the vehicles? How is it to be done? Has he some scheme in which the handing back of these properties will help the country? Will he

allow the Commission to retain any depots? Has he any idea of the geography of the thing? Will he divide up the country or will the best bidder be allowed to take away the whole? If that is the idea it is a poor scheme and we are right to object to it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on the skill and ability with which he dressed up for our consideration all these mechanical transport units to which he referred. I imagine that during the Recess he must have had a fine time indeed going round and being feted and entertained by the personnel involved. He told us of clerks, teleprinters, filing cabinets, drivers and paint stores, and made the whole thing sound most spick and span.
Then came his violent thump on the Despatch Box, and the expression of fear that all this beautiful apparatus of modern transport is to be broken up, the personnel sacked and the heavy hand of the Minister is to descend on it. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend will use half such a strong hand as the hon. Gentleman used just now on the Despatch Box. I believe he will study the composition of these transport units and see just how they are formed and what purpose they serve.
The hon. Gentleman tried to make us think that these are beautiful devices created entirely since the advent of the world we were brought to live in as a result of the Transport Act of 1947. For the first part these units started in a small way 25 or 30 years ago under private enterprise, and were built up into a position where they were ripe for nationalisation at the time when the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) got busy with the transport industry. Where there are depots or exchanges for goods I am certain my right hon. Friend will require them to serve again the interests of a private transport industry. He is quite right to have these powers in order to see that they are sold at the right time in order to fit in with the general scheme of things. But the idea that what has been created, not only before the war by private enterprise but since the war by public enterprise, is to be broken up completely, is quite without foundation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be misled by the words of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It may well be that part of the vast losses which the Commission has sustained has been due to the over-elaborate way in which these transport units which so delight the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, have grown up. Let us not cavil at the cutting out of waste. These units will be so disposed of by my right hon. Friend under the provisions of this Bill that the wasteful expenditure which I am certain has taken place since 1947 will be cut out.
It is monstrous for the hon. Gentleman to come here and to extol to the skies these transportation units, to pretend that they serve the community and that they are worthy of preservation when he knows that a large part of the expenditure which has gone into them has been incurred because of the encouragement given to these nationalised units by the late Government, to the detriment of the value of transport stock which has resulted in the giant losses which the Commission has suffered.

Mr. Irvine: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) assumed first an uncharacteristic frivolity and subsequently an equally uncharacteristic indignation. Having listened to many of the utterances of the noble Lord, I am satisfied that he does this only because he is profoundly unhappy about this whole business. He realises that this Clause, which naturally arouses the indignation of my hon. Friends, is the one which provides for the breakdown, for the whole dirty inequitable business of the disposal of public assets.
This Clause recognises the possibility which we have all appreciated that the whole elaborate process of disposal may prove to be an entire fiasco. It will become necessary for pieces of transport units to be disposed of higgledy-piggledy without any rhyme or reason. This provision is provided to deal with that possibility. What we are witnessing now in the most tragic Parliamentary circumstances is a reckless and disgraceful treatment of public assets and public property.
There is a melancholy parallel between the disposal of public assets by this Bill and the disposal of Parliamentary time

in the discussion of it. Both are ruthless and arbitrary in their methods. When there is a failure to sell transport units as units, the Bill provides that they may be sold in bits—something less than units. The Minister is given far too much power in Clause after Clause of this Bill. In this instance he is given an unqualified power to dispose of pieces of transport units. If the Commission want to dispose of part of a unit it is given power under Clause 5 (1) to go to the Minister and ask for permission.
9.30 p.m.
In that context the Minister can give his consent, and he can attach to it, under subsection (1), a requirement that the question shall be referred to the Board for their approval. To show what an untidy and ill-prepared piece of nonsense this whole thing is, under a proviso to an earlier Clause in the Bill, provision is made where, if the Board is divided about what should be done, the matter can be sent back to the Minister to start all over again. I am reminded by my hon. Friends that that is by the chairman's decision. We are preparing for a situation in which the whole of the disposal procedure breaks down, making arrangements which enable the Minister to give consent but to require the approval of the Board—and in the event of the Board not being able to achieve unity on the course they want to follow, the matter is referred back to the Minister again.
If the procedure is so elaborate and inarticulate and preposterous in that instance, why should it be so arbitrary in this instance? The subsection which we are considering covers the case where the Commission do not apply to the Minister for permission to dispose of a transport unit. This subsection deals with the case where the Minister, for some reason of his own and without application by the Commission, decides that a piece of property shall be disposed of other than as a transport unit. Why is that not required to have the approval of the Board? What reason can satisfy the Committee that this distinction should be made? The Minister is here given an entirely arbitrary power.
This is another instance, of which there have been a great many in this Parliament, of the humbug of the Conservative Party's reputed distrust and dislike of


delegated power and bureaucracy. In subsection (1) we have red tape gone rampant and the most confused bureaucratic procedure—from the Minister to the Disposals Board and back again whereas in subsection (2) we have arbitrary Government gone rampant, for the Minister is granted absolute and arbitrary powers.
It is a great shame. [Laughter.] I am surprised that hon. Members should be amused. This does not make what is going on any more savoury so as to amuse the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South. It makes the position rather worse—not much worse—but a little worse. What is going on is a wrongful and arbitrary disposal of public assets, and the most that we can do under the Guillotine procedure is to register our protest and indignation in the knowledge that our constituents are behind us in this issue, as are large numbers of constituents who sent hon. Members opposite to this House.

Mr. William Shepherd: I do not propose to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) or his rather synthetic indignation, for I want to refer to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies). We have had drawn this evening the picture of a most elaborate and efficient road transport organisation having superseded the archiac conditions of a few years ago, and I want for a few moments, if I may, to tell the Committee about an instance which20 occurred to me only a short time ago which shows how wonderful this system is in practice.
A short time ago, a business with which I am connected had 1 cwt. of material, which was very urgently needed, sent from Leicester. It was sent by road transport and was 11 days overdue. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, that is the sort of thing which can happen to any transport undertaking, but what happened in this case? I saw on the invoice, "Depot No. 112," and I asked my secretary to ring up the Road Haulage Executive to ask where Depot 112 was in London so that we could get in touch with it and find out what had happened to the goods.
They replied by saying, "We are very sorry but there is no corresponding Depot

112 in London." So I said to them, "Where shall we go to try to find out where the goods have got to?" They said, "Well, here is a list of six people who may have received these goods." Six firms in London who might have received those goods under the glorious system which the hon. Gentleman—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I had to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) to the fact that discussion of this matter had gone far enough, and both sides must observe that. This subsection deals with the power of the Minister.

Mr. Shepherd: I quite appreciate that, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I was incensed because hon. Gentlemen opposite were talking about little backyards and businesses run there. At any rate, in the old days one could get in touch with the little backyards and find out what was happening. I do not wish to detain the Committee further. I wanted only to tell the Committee of that personal experience, which, I think, fortifies the view my hon. Friends have put forward.

Mr. Robert Carr: I have listened—

Mr. H. Morrison: Another Tory is going to intervene now.

Mr. Carr: If we had heard a little less talk of the use of the Guillotine today I think we should have had more time for the general discussion, even on this Amendment which hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought forward. I have listened to the arguments which they have adduced, and it seems to me that they have been entirely negative. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) seemed to me to base most of his argument, when he was not painting a glorious picture of nationalised transport, on an attack on the Minister's integrity and sense of responsibility. That seems to me to have been unworthy of him.
If the time for discussion is really so short as hon. Gentlemen opposite make out, would it not be better to devote the time we have to arguments about facts and opinions, instead of to personal denigration of that kind? The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) talked of "dirty and inequitable disposal of public


assets" as justification for this Amendment. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) talked about "frittering away" those assets. But the whole purpose of this subsection which the Amendment seeks to remove follows necessarily from the whole purpose of the Bill, and the purpose of the Bill is to give better service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, to the user of transport.
That, surely, is what must come first, and my purpose in rising is to give just one more example of why it is necessary. Letters read out by my hon. Friend were scoffed at by hon. Members opposite, but I should like to give a more general example of why this subsection is necessary as part of the purpose of the Bill. It is the case of a firm in which I work myself. When nationalised transport came in we had 12 C licence vehicles. Four years later we had 38.
We did not buy those for the fun of it. Capital resources are short and ought to be used for productive machinery, not for buying lorries for doing that work which ought to be done by public hauliers, and the only reason companies like the one I have referred to buy lorries is that they have not been getting the service they require from the Road Haulage Executive. That is why this Bill is necessary, and that is why this subsection is necessary as part of the Bill.

Sir William Darling: This discussion has—

Mr. William Ross: We have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. H. Morrison: Another Tory.

Sir W. Darling: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to dispute with you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, whether you should have allowed me to speak or not, I am willing to yield to him.

Mr. H. Morrison: I was not disputing with the Chair; but, goodness knows. the Opposition have been treated very badly in this Committee. We are trying to ration ourselves—we have got to—and I think it is not playing the game for three Conservative Members in succession to get up and speak without the Minister making the slightest attempt to reply.

Sir W. Darling: I am only too glad to undertake an easier task and one more congenial to my disposition. I shall sit down and give the Opposition the opportunity that they desire.

Mr. Braithwaite: I think there is a genuine misunderstanding here. It was indicated from the Opposition Front Bench, when no Division was taken on the previous Clause, that they wanted more time, and I thought I understood the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) was anxious to speak on this Amendment. I was waiting for him, and I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding about it.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he so vehemently moved this Amendment, said something with which I found myself in wholehearted agreement, about the ports and how enjoyable an experience it was to visit them. May I say that, for my part, I enjoyed no visit more than to the City of Cardiff, where I was received with very great kindness. I have not gone round the same number of ports as the hon. Gentleman has, but I hope to do so in due course.
The main object of this subsection is to deal not so much with ports as with vehicles, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention in the course of his speech. It may not, of course, form an important part of the machinery which we are discussing here. It also deals with buildings, plants, stores and so on. May I say at once, if it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, that depots withdrawn as part of units from the auction will be retained as depots.
The object of this Clause is to provide certain machinery. As the Committee know, we aim at disposing of all property as transport units as far as is practicable, and this subsection enables the Minister to give directions to the Commission to dispose of property
otherwise than as or as part of a transport unit.
As for hon. Members who expressed indignation about subsection (2), I would ask them in all good temper to consider it in connection with and in comparison with the other subsections in this Clause, the whole forming one piece of necessary machinery. For instance, subsection (1)


covers cases where the Commission consider that it is impracticable or inexpedient for them so to dispose of any property, while subsection (3) covers cases where it is desirable that the Commission should retain property for use in some other part of their undertaking. Subsection (4) prohibits the Commission from selling the property except as or as part of a transport unit, save as provided in the three preceding subsections.
This subsection to which the hon. Member took so much exception is complementary to these provisions and allows the Minister to direct the Commission to dispose of property
otherwise than as or as part of a transport unit.
Its purpose is really perfectly innocent. It does not deserve the denunciation which it got from the hon. Gentleman. It is to prevent any lengthy hold-up in the disposal process, and in particular—this is the real object of the subsection—to facilitate the sale of any final residue. It is very important that the Minister should have these powers for that purpose.
"Look to the end" is an excellent motto, and this is part of the machinery for doing that. Of course, neither my right hon. Friend nor his successors will use the power contrary to the general purpose which I have endeavoured to outline to the Committee. We therefore ask that this subsection shall not be deleted but that the Committee will think it proper that it should stand part of the Bill. I do not know whether the vehemence of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is always in inverse ratio to his intentions to carry these matters to the acid test of a Division. He did not do so last time, but we shall welcome it if he does so now.

Mr. Callaghan: We do not intend to carry this Amendment to a Division because we have exactly 45 minutes left in which to discuss the general Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to know that very well by now. If he wants us to spend all our time tramping through the Lobbies, I can tell him that we do not intend to do so. We want to go on discussing this matter. We take great exception to the subsection and we feel that the Minister should not take these powers to himself.
9.45 p.m.
Let me put this final point. The Commission are charged under this Act with the job of ridding themselves of the property they own. They will know exactly what they want to get rid of, and should get rid of, and what they will need for the operation of their undertaking. It does not need the Minister to take these substantial powers to give them directions as to what they should do. They are quite capable of doing that job themselves. In our view it should be left to them to decide the time, place and when they should do the job.
I will not go into the virtues of delegated legislation which the Minister now seems to want to exercise. If we were not operating under a Guillotine, we should most certainly divide the Committee on this particular Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, at the end to insert:
Any directions of the Minister under this subsection may be absolute or conditional, need not be restricted to individual items of property and may require the Commission to consult the Board and, to such extent as may be specified in the directions, to obtain the approval of the Board as to the action to be taken.
This is a minor Amendment, but it aims to secure elucidation and to making an appreciable improvement in this subsection. We have to remember that the property held by the Commission, with which this Clause and subsection deal, is liable to include vehicles as well as static property. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) appeared to be under the impression that the subsection related only to static property but I think that he will agree that it can include vehicles as well. One of its most useful purposes may be in relation to them.
A considerable number of vehicles—between 2,000 and 3,000—in the possession of the Commission are unserviceable, and it would be impracticable to include those unserviceable vehicles in a transport unit which is by the definition of the Bill supposed to be a going, workable, business concern. The question which I wish to put to the Minister relates to the machinery of disposal under this Clause.
The expression "dispose" is the one used throughout this Clause, whereas in


Clause 3, which specifies an alternative method by which the Commission can divest itself of this property, we have the expression "… invite tenders for the purchase," by public notice. I should like to ask the Minister by what machinery it is contemplated that the disposal of these assets excluded from a transport unit would normally take place. I suggest that, in any case, it should normally take place in consultation with the Disposal Board. After all, under this Bill, we are making the Disposal Board the appropriate authority for overseeing the whole transaction whereby the Commission divests itself of its road haulage undertaking, and surely, even where a direction is given by the Minister, it will normally be appropriate that the Disposal Board should be the body which oversees the transaction, and which has the opportunity to comment and to intervene.
This Amendment, therefore, assimilates the provision of subsection (2) mutatis mutandis to those of subsection (1) and would normally rely on the Minister's directions being complied with in collaboration with the Disposal Board. I suggest that is the appropriate method, and I would ask my right hon. Friend, in indicating his point of view on this matter, to give more details as to the way in which he anticipates that that disposal under this Clause would normally take place.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has put these questions. As the Committee knows, it is proposed that the Disposal Board will supervise the sale of the businesses, but there may come a time when the sale of businesses is drawing to an end, and when there may be only vehicles to sell without any automatic special A licence rights. It would, in my view, be right that the Disposal Board, which by that time I am sure will have earned the confidence of all who will have been brought in touch with it, should also supervise the sale of the remaining assets, even though their express purpose of supervising the sale of the businesses has come to an end. I think it would be as well to include words somewhat of this kind in the Clause.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to leave it like this. I will have a look at the wording in consultation with my

advisers, and I will seriously consider bringing either the same words or similar words to express the same purpose into the Bill on the Report stage.

Sir Frank Soskice: I must confess some surprise at the Minister's speech. I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) gave the complete answer to the proposal in this Amendment to which the Minister is sympathetic. Clause 2 (8) says that in the event of there being a difference amongst the members of the Board, they themselves can ask the Minister to decide between them. What the proposal apparently suggests is that the Minister should be entitled to give a direction to the Commission, amongst others, to consult with the Disposal Board. As my hon. Friend said, it is difficult to conceive a more topsy-turvy procedure.
I suppose what may happen is that in a particular case the Minister will tell the Commission to go to the Disposal Board and ask them whether they are to carry out the Minister's direction. They will disagree amongst themselves and then go back to the Minister for him to decide between them about what they are to say. It seems very difficult to conceive anything more absurd than that.
It is most surprising, I should have thought, that the Minister should not have seen through this Amendment straight away and rejected it out of hand. Just conceive what will happen. The Minister will say, "I direct you, the Commission, to dispose of certain vehicles and to ask the Disposal Board whether you are to comply with my direction." That is fantastic enough, to begin with. It is quite absurd that the Minister should say, "I tell you to dispose of the vehicles, but I also tell you to ask the Disposal Board whether you are to comply with my direction." Looking at the proviso to Clause 2 (8), we find that the Disposal Board can, if they disagree, go to the Minister to ask the Minister to resolve the disagreement. There the absurdity reaches its absolute height.
I suppose what might happen is that the Minister will say to the Commission, "Dispose of the following vehicles if the Disposal Board tells you to do so"—"tells you to comply with my direction," in other words—the Disposal Board then disagree, some members saying that the Minister's direction should be complied


with and some members saying it should not be complied with: having disagreed about what they should do they go to the Minister and say, "Now you tell us. Are we to tell the Commission to comply with your direction or are we to tell them not to comply with your direction?" I suppose the Minister will then say to the Disposal Board, "I agree with those of your members who say you should disregard my direction," so that a direction will go to the Disposal Board telling the Disposal Board to tell the Commission to disregard what the Minister has told them to do.
I know the Minister is very heavily burdened by this most unreasonable Bill, and it is perhaps permissible that he should be allowed, from time to time, to slip into lapses. But I think this is really a had one, and I hope he will get up again and say that he spoke without consideration of the implications of this Amendment, and that he realises it is absolutely preposterous and could not by any conceivable stretch of the imagination be accepted. We do not like the subsection, and we do not see why it should be made not only pernicious but patently absurd, as this Amendment would make it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the whole Committee will have been enlivened by the sprightly way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put his objections to the Committee. I am grateful to him for his concern about the heavy weight of burden that lies upon me, but I assure him that, heavy though it is, I do not feel that through it I have stumbled into any error at this particular moment. It may be that on further examination it may be found that it is not necessary to include words of this kind, but as I feel at present it seems desirable to make certain that the Disposal Board should also be available to give advice in the concluding stages of the operation when the businesses have been disposed of and when only vehicles and other fixed assets remain.
It would, I think, be wrong that the Board, having discharged its responsibilities in regard to businesses, should not be available in this particular field. I am advised at the moment that there might be some doubt about that unless words of this kind were included. Obviously, it would not be a question of

referring to the Commission and asking them to consult the Board as to whether or not they should accept the Minister's direction or anything so reminiscent of the previous régime as that.
The sole purpose would be to place an obligation on the Commission, in consultation with the Board, to carry out the Minister's direction. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I will look carefully into this, and, if the words appear to be necessary, not even the sprightly interjections of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will prevent me from including them on the Report stage.

Mr. D. Jones: Do I now understand the Minister to say that he is going to. look at the matter again in order that he can write words into the Bill to keep. the Road Haulage Disposal Board in being with all its costs for the purpose of distributing the odds and ends that may be left behind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would he very inaccurate to put it quite so crudely as that. I do not think that the burden on the fund, not on the taxpayer, of the continuance of the Board in being for this limited period would be very considerable, and I am certain that if hon. Members opposite are anxious that the disposals should be carried out in an orderly fashion, then the help of the Board may be highly desirable.

Mr. Jones: In other words, jobs for the boys.

Mr. Maude: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the former Solicitor-General. I do not feel that he has really grasped the point of this Amendment at all. He seems to me to have overlooked the obvious point that the Board is charged with the responsibility in respect of method and timing in which a particular sale takes place. I cannot see that there is anything in the least illogical or fantastic in the Minister giving a direction in general terms to the Commission to dispose of property, the Commission going to the Board for advice and consultation as to the method and timing of the disposal, and, if there is disagreement, the parties then going to the Minister to have the question resolved. It is in order to clarify that point that the Amendment has been put


forward. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will include it on the Report Stage.

Mr. Powell: In view of the interest shown by my right hon. Friend the Minister in the line of thought underlying this Amendment and his undertaking to look at the point involved, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "with the consent of the Minister."
Subsection (3) deals with the disposal of property and, I understand, with vehicles that belong to the Commission, but which are not used by the road haulage undertaking. Let me say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that I thought property meant property and not vehicles, but reading the Clause again I see that it means vehicles as well as property.
Why does the Minister need these powers? In other parts of the Bill he has told the Commission that they have to get rid of the Road Haulage Executive, and in this Clause he is telling them that such part of the vehicles as cannot be sold in a transport unit they must sell as chattels. Why does he wish to take these additional powers to say that they may only keep certain vehicles, or property, which is the generic term, apparently, which is not at the moment used by the road haulage undertaking with his consent. It seems as though the words "with the Minister's consent" have been scattered through the Bill like currants in a plum duff. The Minister is intervening far too much in this matter, and we ask him why he thinks he needs these powers and how he proposes to exercise them.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) suggests that "with the consent of the Minister appears at almost every stage of the Bill. I hope that, for his own elucidation, he will count up the number of times the Minister has to take powers in this transaction, powers which will come to an end as soon as the process of disposal is over. I can assure him that I have no wish whatever to add to the

powers of any Minister, even though Ministerial responsibility rests where it does at the moment.
In a procedure of this kind, where the process of disposal will come to an end at a relatively early date, it is desirable that the Minister should have a certain authority, particularly where the Commission are asked to carry out an undertaking which is contrary to their own wishes and convictions but which, I feel quite confident none the less, they will, in cooperation with the Board and the Minister, loyally discharge.
The purpose of the insertion of "with the consent of the Minister" is to protect the Commission against any charge that they may be retaining property unduly. There may be, for example, cases, I am advised, where the Road Haulage Executive might use premises within the precincts of a dock which could not be disposed of to a private purchaser without prejudicing the efficient carrying on of the dock undertaking. If the matter were left solely to the Commission to decide whether to retain this property, it might be argued that they were improperly keeping possession of something of which they should dispose. If the Minister is brought into this field, a diminishing field, they will be safe from any charge of that kind. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will accept the words in the Bill and will reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. Morrison: Before we part with the Clause there should be some discussion for which there is time. I would like to give to the Committee a picture of the situation that the Clause contemplates, as far as I can see it. I hope very much that I shall be accurate, but this is a rather confusing and somewhat chaotic situation to contemplate.
The disposal of vehicles under the Bill aims at their disposal in what are called "operable units," that is to say, numbers of transport vehicles that can be operated as a team for a certain purpose. Although on the other hand, it is contemplated that some vehicles may be sold individually or in twos or threes, the term "operable units" is used.
It is evidently contemplated that at the end of the day it may be impossible


to dispose of all the vehicles in operable units. Therefore, scattered over the country, there will be a number of odd vehicles, or perhaps vehicles that do not fit in with operable units. They may be good vehicles, but nevertheless are regarded by potential purchasers as odds and ends that will not fit into their businesses. These vehicles may have been a valuable and useful part of the undertaking of the Road Haulage Executive, but the Minister evidently contemplated a situation in which such vehicles have become virtually unsaleable or redundant, vis-à-vis the operable units, and they are left on the hands of the Commission or of the Road Haulage Executive.
This indicates that the Bill is manufacturing a muddled situation. Indeed, it is almost inevitable that it should be so, because under the Road Haulage Executive now there is the national organisation including the special traffics, there are the regions and there are the local groups and there are the local depots. In short, the organisation of the Road Haulage Executive is a deliberately constructed organisation calculated to meet the needs of road haulage for the public, for industry and for the country as a whole.
The units of management, far from being centralised, vary from these special traffics nationally operated as they must be, such as Pickfords, to the regions and to the groups and to the depots. All this indicates that there is an organisation calculated to meet the varying local, group, regional and national needs of trade and industry as regards road haulage.
This developing organisation is to be smashed up. It is to go—to a large extent at any rate—and, be it remembered, it was an organisation which gradually the old railway companies under private ownership were themselves seeking to build up in association with the railway undertakings. Now comes along this Bill which I say again, with great respect, is based upon the philosophy of anarchy. It is destructive —the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) can sit there and sneer. He may be Chairman of the Tory Transport Committee, but I have been in this business of transport for a long time and I know what I am talking about.
I say that this Bill is calculated to smash up the whole show. The result is that the Minister himself under this Clause has to contemplate a situation in which he has got what are units or items of property difficult to dispose of and therefore he has to contemplate a special procedure.
It may well be that there will be quite a lot of vehicles left on the hands of the Road Haulage Executive, especially the less profitable ones. Then comes along this process whereby the Minister can require the Road Haulage Executive to sell them, or they themselves can sell them with the consent of the Minister. This is an extraordinary Clause. In one line the Minister may direct and in another line the Commission or somebody else may do something with the consent of the Minister. Never was there a more bureaucratic Clause whereby they cannot do anything without the consent of the Minister and they can be directed to do things by the Minister. I have never seen a politician throwing himself so much over almost every line of this Bill.
Then what will happen? It is contemplated that those vehicles will not be sold as parts of an operable unit. Clearly they will not be sold at their fair market price. As my lion. Friend said, they are to be sold as chattels, possibly as junk when they are not junk, at any price, to get rid of them. The Minister is determined that any advantageous possession of public property by a public authority shall be got rid of at the earliest possible moment because he hates public authorities owning anything that is worth having. He wants private enterprise to own everything that is worth having.
There is not only the vehicles. There are the depots which have been built up: the garages, the offices, the engineering shops and the architects' offices and so on, where the technicians and specialists have been employed, greatly to the advantage of the organisation of road commercial haulage. They are left.
Once this organisation is broken up—this evolving developing carefully framed organisation, from depots to groups and regions to the national organisation, with all the depots and engineering shops, repair shops and technicians and other organisations dependent upon that organisation and as a useful part of it; directly the Government break up this carefully


framed organisation and drift to what I call—I think, fairly—anarchy, these valuable pieces of the organisation become redundant. So there is property which is valuable to the Transport Commission, valuable, as things are, to the Road Haulage Executive, but which in the new anarchist régime of things cease to have that value because they cannot function as part of a co-ordinated, organised, national, regional and local system of transport.
And, of course, there will be property in which the Road Haulage Executive were co-operating with the railway undertakings. I think there is some provision somewhere whereby that property can be retained, although, of course, with the inevitable consent of the right hon. Gentleman. The more one reads the Bill, the more one realises that he is aiming to be in the position of the diety as regards all this. Where he will finish ultimately I do not know, but there it is.
The value of this valuable property is partly determined by the existence of a really organised transport system, or the beginnings of the organised transport system, and the beginnings of coordination, and the value of these parts of the property consists in the fact that they are playing their part in that organisation. But along comes anarchist No. 1, the Minister of Transport, supported by anarchist No. 2, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South. The Minister starts smashing up the whole of this, whereupon the value of that property also goes to smithereens.
Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Having ruined the undertaking, having upset the value of the undertaking and having caused all this devaluation, of course I must have power to direct the Commission to get rid of it, at any old price—at a song: or if the poor Commission want to set rid of it, they must have my consent to get rid of it." I should have thought that the least the Minister could do was not to treat the Commission with the contempt with which he is treating them, but that having done the best he can to ruin the undertaking, he might at least have left the Commission freedom to dispose of this stuff as best they can in the circumstances imposed upon them by the Minister.
Quite frankly, I trust the Commission more than I trust the Minister. I should think that the Commission want to make a success of public enterprise of the undertakings committed to their charge and that they want to protect their property as much as they can. But the more I hear of the Minister I say this without heat, anger or spite—the less I am inclined to trust him, because I think that he has a bitter, unreasoning, undying bias against the public interest when it comes to publicly-owned property. I do not trust him with all these powers, because I think he will use them contrary to the public interest and contrary to public property. On the whole, I would sooner trust the Commission with these powers and let the poor things get through all these troubles as best they can when this beastly Bill has become an Act of Parliament.
Therefore, we shall divide against this Clause. We believe it is a bad Clause we believe it is an injurious Clause. We do not think that all this Ministerial business is necessary. We think it would be better to trust the Commission to carry through this most unhappy and unpleasant operation which is caused by the nature of the Bill. We oppose the Clause and will divide the Committee upon it.

10.15 p.m.

Sir W. Darling: I wish to intervene in the debate because I feel that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has done himself rather less than justice. He has inveighed against the Minister for seeking to arrogate to himself the position of God and, at the same time, has described him as an anarchist. That strikes me as a little difficult. I do not know what conception the right hon. Gentleman has of the deity, but he is certainly not anarchic. The right hon. Member used to be a member of the B.S.-I.S.L.P. but I think he must have parted from them in order to find this strange diarchy, this strange maleficiation. I do beg him to be more indulgent to the Minister.
May I make this suggestion to the right hon. Member? I think the Minister is behaving in a most democratic and gallant fashion in which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South dare not act. What has been the position of the Road Haulage Executive up to now? It


lived apart. True it was the creation of the right hon. Member, but no one could attack or criticise the Executive. What does my right hon. Friend do? He puts himself right in the forefront of the battle and, although we cannot now shoot at the Executive, my right hon. Friend has said, "You can ask any Question about the management under this Bill, about the disposal and other activities."
In place of these doubtful and somewhat unworthy attacks I think my right hon. Friend should be congratulated. Unlike the previous Government, he has said, I will come to the House of Commons and defend the action I have taken. I will bear my breast to the attack of the voracious and carnivorous Members on the Opposition benches." There is something considerable in this Clause and something courageous. My right hon. Friend says that he will put this Bill through and make it an Act of Parliament. He says, "I will stand behind it personally and meet the House of Commons day after day as a consequence of my actions." That is what he says and I congratulate him on taking that view.

Mr. D. Jones: If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) really believes what he has been telling the Committee about the Minister and what the Clause will do he is much simpler than I gave him credit for being. The Clause will do nothing of the sort.
The Clause has 32 lines in it and in those 32 lines the Minister is mentioned four times. It was on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Minister paid a tribute, I thought, to the public spirit, the integrity and the enthusiasm of the Transport Commission. It was his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works who, on 17th May at Middlesbrough, said that he did not trust the Commission. This Clause indicates quite clearly that the Minister was being hypocritical on the Second Reading of the Bill because he writes into this Clause such powers as to show that he does not trust the Commission to do anything at all.
I am opposed to this Clause because 1 think that it is unnecessary. The Minister already has power under the 1947 Act to give any directions he desires to the Commission if it is in the public interest. If, therefore, it became necessary in the

public interest to direct the Commission to dispose of any part of this property, he already possesses the power to do so. Why, then, is it necessary to take this power in this Clause to do something which the Minister already has the power to do if it is in the public interest? I suspect that it is because that even the Minister will not be able to justify some of the things which he proposes to do under this Bill when it becomes an Act.
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), in a debate on an Amendment to Clause 5, said that the C licence holders were concerned about the inefficient service which they had from the operations of the Road Haulage Executive. He advanced that as a reason for the considerable increase in the number of C licences in operation in this country. It is a pity that the hon. Member had not read an article by Mr. F. D. Fitz-Gerald, the Secretary of the Trader's Road Transport Association, in the current issue of the "Commercial Motor." He would have seen that that gentleman, who, I assume, knows something about the operation of C licences, advances a number of other reasons for the increase in the number of C licences in this country.
He writes:
The first fact to remember is that the increase in ancillary vehicles is not peculiar to Britain but is something which has taken place in many other countries.
He then points out that C licences have increased very largely because of increased mechanisation. He writes:
Part of the increase in C-licensed vehicles is attributable to the post-war expansion in mechanisation. Transport was formerly done by messenger boys on foot or on a bicycle. the horse and cart or the handbarrow is now widely carried out by motor vehicles.

Sir W. Darling: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Jones: No. If the hon. Member cannot make a more intelligent intervention than he did when he made his speech, I do not intend to waste the time. So the advance in the number of C licences has not been because of the inefficiency—

Sir W. Darling: On a point of order. So far as I can discover—

The Chairman: I do not see how any point of order can arise.

Mr. Jones: I therefore oppose this Clause because it is completely unnecessary. If the Minister wishes to exercise the power to direct the Transport Commission he already possesses it. In reply to a proposed Amendment to this Clause the Minister said that all the Clause gave him power to do was to direct the Transport Commission until the road haulage equipment and vehicles had been disposed of. There is nothing in the Clause or in the Bill which says that this power is to come to an end when the road haulage vehicles have been disposed of. The Long Title of the Bill alters the composition and powers of the Transport Commission; and there is nothing in the Clause which says that when the road haulage property has been disposed of this power is to be withdrawn. The Minister will retain this special power as long as he likes to maintain it. Therefore, because I think that this power is completely unnecessary, I oppose the Clause.

Mr. Carr: I listened to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and it seemed to me that there was a great fallacy in one part of his argument to which I wish to draw attention.
He developed a picture of the Disposal Board gathering together operable units. He said, quite rightly, that when they were disposed of there would be lorries and other property possibly left over here and there throughout the country. From that he argued that these vehicles, which had played a useful part in the work of the Road Haulage Executive, would now be valueless—I think he used the phrase, "virtually unsaleable." If they became virtually unsaleable because of this change of ownership and organisation in road transport, it can indicate only that there are more vehicles and property possessed under the present Executive setup than are needed to do the road transport work of this country efficiently. It can only prove that the amount of road transport to be done can be done with fewer vehicles and fewer assets of other kinds.
The right hon. Gentleman developed that argument and applied it to the whole organisation of the Road Haulage Executive. He said that if we break up this carefully planned and carefully developed organisation we shall make different parts

of it useless. But those parts of the organisation can only become useless if they are surplus to the efficient transport needs of this country. That is the whole basis of our argument for this Bill, that road transport can be done more efficiently and to the greater benefit of the public under a system of private enterprise. We are not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, getting rid of the Road Haulage Executive because we hate a public authority to own property worth having. We are doing it only and entirely because we believe that private enterprise can do the job more efficiently.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) referred to an earlier intervention which I made when I adduced, from the increase in the number of C licences, the fact that traders and business men were finding the service rendered by the Road Haulage Executive insufficient for their needs. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools quoted from some article. But really we have got a long way past the days of replacing bicycles and horse traffic and all the rest of it. I do not care who writes in what journal, that is not the reason for the increase in the C licence vehicles.
I have quoted the case of a company about which I have special knowledge. I said the number of C licence vehicles of that company had increased from 13 to 38 since nationalisation. I assure the hon. Member for The Hartlepools that we had no horse transport or bicycle transport four years ago. We did not want to spend scarce capital resources on buying lorries. We wanted to spend our resources on buying productive machinery. We spent it on buying lorries only because we could no longer get from the Road Haulage Executive the service we were able to get regularly from public hauliers under private enterprise. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, that is a fact so far as the company of which I know is concerned, and I am sure it is a fact—

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Carr: I am sorry, 1 cannot give way. I am sure it is a fact with regard to thousands of other manufacturing companies. That is the reason why the number of C licences has increased. There may be other reasons, but that is the main reason.

It being Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 283: Noes, 264.

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fletcher-Cooke, C
Low, A. R. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Arbuthnot, John
Foster, John
Lucas, P. B (Brentford)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCallum, Major D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Banks, Col. C.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Barber, Anthony
Gammons, L. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McKibbin, A. J.


Baxter, A. B.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Godber, J. B.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Birch, Nigel
Grimond, J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marlowe, A. A. H


Black, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marples, A. E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Bossom, A. C.
Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maude, Angus


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maudling, R.


Braine, B. R.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Ll.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mellor, Sir John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H,
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Molson, A. H. E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hay, John
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Brooman-White, R. C.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Molt-Radclyffe, C. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Heath, Edward
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bullard, D. G.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hill, Dr. Charles
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Butcher, H. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Campbell, Sir David
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hollis, M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Carson, Hon. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Oakshott, H. D.


Cary, Sir Robert
Holt, A. F.
Odey, G. W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hope, Lord John
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Cole, Norman
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Colegate W. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Partridge, E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peaks, Rt. Han. O.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)





Perkins, W. R. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hutchison, James (Scolstoun)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kaberry, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Deedes, W. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Raikes, H. V


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Rayner, Brig. R


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Remnant, Hon. P


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Renton, D. L. M.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Langford-Holt, J. A
Robertson, Sir David


Drayson, G. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robson-Brown, W.


Duthie, W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Roper, Sir Harold


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Erroll, F. J.
Llewellyn, D. T
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hen. G. (King's Norton)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur




Sandys, Rt. Hon D.
Storey, S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Scott, R. Donald
Summers, G. S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Sutcliffe, H.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Shepherd, William
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Teeling, W.
Watkinson, H. A.


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Snadden, W. McN.
Thompson. Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Spearman, A. C. M
Tilney, John
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Speir, R. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Wills, G.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turton, R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stevens, G. P.
Vane, W. M. F.
Wood, Hon. R.


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
York, C.


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Vosper, D. F.



Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wade, D. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Adams, Richard
Edelman, M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Keenan, W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kenyon, C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hen. C. W


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
King, Dr. H. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Kinley, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Ewart, R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Baird, J.
Field, W. J.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Balfour, A.
Fienburgh, W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Finch, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur


Bartley, P.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Follick, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bence, C. R.
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Bents, Wedgwood
Forman, J. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Beswick, F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Freeman, John (Watford)
McInnes, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Freeman. Peter (Newport)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blackburn, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McLeavy, F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gibson, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Blyton, W. R.
Glanville, James
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Boardman, H.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)



Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Brockway, A. F.
Grey, C. F.
Manuel, A. C.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C P


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Messer, F.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Burke, W. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Monslow, W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.


Carmichael, J.
Hannan, W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Morley, R.


Champion, A. J.
Hargreaves, A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Chapman, W. D.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Chetwyn G. R
Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.


Clunie, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.


Coldrick, W.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mulley, F. W.


Collick, P. H.
Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Murray, J. D


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Herbison, Miss M.
Nally, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsever)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Holman, P.
Oldfield, W. H.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.


Daines, P.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oswald, T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pannell, Charles


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Deer, G.
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


Delargy, H. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paton, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pearson, A.


Donnelly, D. L.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pearl, T. F.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Porter, G.







Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Proctor, W. T
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
West, D. G.


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Reeves, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon;
Swingler, S. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Sylvester, G. O
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wigg, George


Richards, R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Willey, F. T.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, David (Neath)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertiliery)


Ross, William
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Royle, C.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon, E.
Thornton, E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Short, E. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Timmons, J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Tomney, F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wyatt, W. L.


Slater, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Yates, V. F.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Viant, S. P.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Snow, J. W.
Wallace, H. W.



Sorensen, R. W.
Watkins, T. E.



Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE. NOES:


Sparks, J. A.
Weitzman, D.
Mr. Popplewell and


Steele, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (BILLETING)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft Civil Defence (Billeting) Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, 1952, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Butcher.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I am rather surprised that there is no Minister here responsible for these Regulations relating to Civil Defence. Neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary is here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Here comes the Parliamentary Secretary. After we have heard what the Government have to say about this Motion we can, perhaps, agree to it, Is there no explanation?

10.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The explanation is that if an emergency comes, it will be necessary to see that the people who are in difficulties are able to get accommodation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can assure the hon.

Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that the Government have gone into this very thoroughly before, as he knows from his term of office at the Home Office. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it really will be necessary to see that the unfortunate people who are in difficulties are able to be housed and properly looked after in the case of enemy hostilities. It is for this praiseworthy reason that the Government have these Regulations in mind. If there is any particular respect which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, or to which the Opposition object, I am quite certain that the Government will be agreeable to look at it, hut the Regulations are to enable the unfortunate people who are in difficulties in the case of enemy hostilities to be looked after.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. de Freitas: Many of us thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been in better training than this after all the physical jerks he does and the amount of bicycle riding that takes place. He did not do too badly considering he took the order quite unseen. However, I think we are entitled—without any question of taking any great time over the matter—to be told what local authorities these Regulations apply to. As I understand it—if I am right, the hon. Gentleman will tell me so: if I am wrong he will correct me—this order completes the billeting scheme covering various types of authorities, both the reception authorities and the authorities from whose areas people will he evacuated. The basis of


the whole scheme, which would have to operate if, unfortunately, we were involved in a war, is the dispersal of population. This would be so whether the attack were atomic or by other methods of mass destruction or by what we call "conventional" methods.
There are one or two questions I want to ask. One concerns the speech made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government a week ago, in which he said, as reported in "The Times," that arrangements should take into account the possibility that Britain might have to receive refugees from other countries. That is either mere speculation, in which case we ought to be told that it is; or it is a statement of major policy concerning our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If it is a statement of policy, we ought to know why it was not made in this House, and we ought to know the details of that plan. On behalf of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ede) the then Home Secretary I did have conversations with other Ministers concerned with civil defence in Europe. But there was then no question of schemes for the reception of refugees.
I should mention that we like the way the Government have followed the previous Government in impressing upon people that so much can be done in Civil Defence to mitigate the effects of atomic attack by study and careful training; but as I have pointed out before, the manual on which we work is based on the effects of the 1945 Horoshima type of bomb. I should like to know whether the Government intend to bring forward a manual based on the Montebello type of bomb. The Government must bring forward such a manual.
As to the Regulations which the Parliamentary Secretary somewhat ignored, they complete the scheme for billeting, and on behalf of my hon. Friends I would ask local authorities who have this heavy burden imposed upon them to accept it as they did in the past. Those of us who have served on local authorities sometimes think that Parliament imposes duties upon them without much consideration. I hope it may be said that at least the Opposition if not the Government has considered this and thinks it justifiable that there should be this scheme.

Mr. Marples: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would say that the local authority associations have been consulted and have agreed with the Government the draft Regulations. Therefore it is not right to say that this is an additional burden. The purpose of these Regulations is to enable local authorities in evacuation and neutral areas to make formal arrangements for the accommodation of homeless persons and refugees. I do not think the House will expect me to go into the possible effects of an atomic explosion, whether of the recent, or the older, type.
All I can say is that these Regulations are necessary to enable authorities in evacuation and neutral areas to make preparations for the reception not only of homeless people, but perhaps of refugees rendered homeless in this country. The local authority associations have been taken into consultation, and, as they are in agreement with the Government, I hope the House will agree to the Regulations.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The House has reason to complain of the casual way these Regulations have been introduced. Surely Regulations which are so far-reaching in character that they affect huge masses of the population should have been treated in a more detailed way than they were by a Minister who was handed his brief at the last moment and did not seem to understand the importance of it. He referred to an emergency. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these important Civil Defence Regulations have been before us since 4th July, and it is only now that the Government have found time to submit them for the consideration of the House. We have had all kinds of less important legislation, such as Bills affecting the rights to control the "pubs" in the new towns, but apparently consideration of the fate of the civil population in the next war must be delayed and delayed until December, when time is found to consider Regulations which have been before us since 4th July.
These Regulations impose very heavy duties upon local authorities, who will have every reason to complain about the way this has been done. References have been


made to the possible results of an atom bomb explosion over London. Far from a small fraction of the population having to be dispersed throughout the country and billeted in country districts, we are concerned here with a huge problem to which the Government have not given the necessary consideration. The Regulations lay down that:
It shall be the duty of every local authority, in accordance with the directions of the Minister, to make plans for the provision and maintenance of a service in their area for the billeting therein of persons who, owing to hostile action or a threat of hostile action, are made homeless or leave their homes, or are refugees or persons repatriated from abroad.
We are entitled to know how many people are likely to be affected in this way. If atom bombs drop on London, Liverpool, or any of the other big seaports, we shall have to deal with a billeting problem entirely different from the billeting problem of the last war. What will be the fate of the unfortunate billeting officers in Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire or Wales who are called upon to provide accommodation for millions of homeless people who are likely to be taken from the big towns? In addition, they are asked to provide for large numbers of homeless people from Germany. I suggest that we are placing a far greater burden of responsibility on the local authorities to find homes for these people than can possibly be undertaken with the machinery outlined in these Regulations.
Although the Parliamentary Secretary did not realise it, these Regulations establish military Communism on a large scale in our rural areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If a billeting officer is given power to take the name of every inhabitant in his area, to find out the number of rooms and to provide information for billeting people from other parts of the country, or foreigners, that is surely an invasion of the Englishman's home and establishes the worst kind of Communism in this country. I suggest that the Government have not given sufficient thought to this; that they have not the housing accommodation in the country, and that these Regulations show that, instead of having elaborate plans for Civil Defence, while the Government have elaborate plans for attacking other countries, they have no adequate plans for defending our civil population against possible counter-attacks.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Having regard to the claims which the party opposite have been making since 25th October last year that the danger of war is receding, and particularly having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister announced last week a cut in the defence programme, I cannot understand why this Regulation should be brought forward at this particular time.
We are told that since this Government came into power the tension has eased and the danger of war has receded. The party opposite have tried to pretend that we have been the war party and that over the last 14 months they have justified their claim that peace is safe so long as they are in power. But if that is so, then I do not understand why this Regulation should be brought in now. Nor do I understand why it should be so loosely worded. It does not make clear whether the billeting officers will have power to invade the Englishman's home, which is his castle, or not.
Is it to be a voluntary system or a compulsory system? If it is to be a compulsory system, then I hope it is going to be applied in a much fairer manner than was the scheme operated during, the last war. Although I lived in a reception area throughout the last war, I know that there was a large measure of discontent because people who had the facilities, the accommodation and the time failed to give the children and the workers who were evacuated to their areas the accommodation to which they were entitled. On the other hand, the poor, humble homes that lacked facilities and accommodation very rightly, due to their humanity, overcrowded themselves.
I would like to know—assuming that it becomes necessary for this Regulation to operate, which God forbid—whether the billeting officers will have compulsory powers, and, if so, whether they will use them fairly and will not send the homeless people into working-class homes while people with much bigger houses and more accommodation fail to do their duty.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: They never were.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says they never were. It is useless for him to say that, because I know what happened in my own locality.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that in other localities precisely the opposite happened?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am glad to hear that, and I hope that in my locality that will be our experience if ever these Regulations become operative, which I fervently hope they will not. It would be the greatest tragedy of this world if ever these Regulations had to be given effect to.
The Government would appear to have brought forward these Regulations at a most inopportune time. They have not given the House the information it ought to have, and I hope they will see to it that on any future occasion the unfairness which operated in many instances on the last occasion will not be repeated.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: May I ask the Minister one question? In Clause 1 (2), the Interpretation Act, 1899, does he really mean the Interpretation Act, 1889?

Mr. Marples: indicated assent.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question, and one only? Would it not help the local authorities in the exercise of their duties if his manual were brought up to date?

10.59 p.m.

Sir Sidney Marshall: I hesitate to break into this debate at this time of night,. but I am forced to do so because of the remarks that have come from the other side in regard to these Regulations. I should imagine that every person who is in this House tonight and who had some experience of Civil Defence during the last war would be fully aware of the necessity for these Regulations. I had the experience. and I was not proud of it.
These Regulations are essential. The Civil Defence services should realise, as the Home Secretary said the other day, that they are the fourth line of defence. They were warned of the necessity for making provision for the larger numbers that were expected to be evacuated from London at very short notice. They did not agree, but we made what provision we could.
The Regulations enable the local authorities to do what they had to do in

1939 and 1940. No one would deny the necessity for the local authorities to be able fully to make all the provision which may be necessary, because of the changed forms of attack which might occur, whereby the home front might easily become the battle front. That is the difficulty in anything we may have to encounter in the years to come.
In the latter part of the war the battle front came very near to our own homes, and it is therefore necessary to give to the local authorities all the powers needed to prepare for such things. I hope that the House will give that authority by passing these Regulations, which are needed for the common defence, and will give them united support.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I speak as one who remembers his own experiences during the last war of getting children away into the country. It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that billeting officers found some of the best areas of the country occupied by wealthy business people. I had the experience during the early part of the last war, after the billeting started, that there was splendid accommodation acquired in Somerset and Devon, where well-to-do people had got away to the country, and when it came to finding a place to put our children we could only get them accommodated in cottages, often in overcrowded conditions.
In the burgh where I lived, in Clydebank, the people were billeted several miles away from the residential areas, where ample accommodation existed. There was ample accommodation there for the working men and women, but that area was jumped over and they were billeted out in the mining villages 15 or 20 miles from their work, whereas they could have been billeted in Bearsden, five miles from their work. Much of the accommodation they hoped to get had been bought up. Many, who were concerned with these operations during the raids well remember that in Worcestershire, the billeting officers found it difficult to get men, women and children accommodated while well-to-do people from London and other cities were sitting in comfort in the big houses there. The children went into farm cottages which were overcrowded.
I remember four children being billeted in a small cottage, whereas, a mile away, there was a vicarage with only two people with well-to-do people as paying guests. That was a common experience of working-class people in the blitzed cities. Under these Regulations, I see nothing to prevent that happening again in future. The people of Clydebank are deeply concerned that if anything should happen again they may be put 15 or 20 miles from their homes while highly-residential areas can escape their obligation. They are concerned that, unless firm action is taken, this may occur again.

11.7 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: It is right we should put this matter in its proper perspective. We have had a very fine class hatred speech from the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), which I was surprised to hear. He has taken the example where things were not as they should have been and has assumed that the whole country was like that. Nothing of the kind. There may have been people in what are called the upper classes, who did not do their job. There is an equal number of people in what are called the lower classes who did not do their job. But the great majority of classes did their job and it is highly undesirable, in bringing in such a Regulation, that we should have class hatred introduced.

Mr. Bence: I am not preaching class hatred.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: There is no doubt about it. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said exactly the same thing.

Mr. Fernyhough: And I maintain it.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member maintains it, so he backs up the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East.
It is deplorable to think that when we are faced with tragedy the only outlook is that of class hatred. No more damnable thing can be done in this world than to set one class against another. I do not think that the hon. Gentlemen really mean it, but it is deplorable, when these Regulations are brought forward with a view to making arrangements for an emergency, that they should put them on this basis.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: I want to ask only one question. Why has the Minister decided to include the Common Council of the City of London and the Councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs as authorities suitable to arrange for billeting?

Resolved,

That the Draft Civil Defence (Billeting) Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, 1952, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS

11.9 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move,
That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
These are rather complicated Regulations and it may be of assistance if I outline the principal changes which they bring about. Then, if hon. Members have specific points they wish to raise, I will do my best to answer them.

Dr. Horace King: On a point of order. As a Member of the Statutory Instruments Committee, am I in order in calling,, attention to what took place with regard to these Regulations at the meeting of the Committee last night, or has the Minister been made aware of what happened?

Mr. Speaker: Normally, one cannot take notice of what a Committee does until it reports. Perhaps the Minister can cover the point.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think I can answer the kind of point the hon. Member has in mind. I have not seen the report, which, so far as I know, is not available. But I have heard rumours of what is likely to be in it, and I think I can answer specific points put to me.
There are two aspects of these Regulations in which hon. Members are interested. There is the question of the intention and effect of the Regulations and the question of the form and manner of the presentation of them. May I say something about the idea and effect of the Regulations? The primary purpose


is to provide increased pensions and allowances for the dependants of certain deceased police officers similar to the increases which have been authorised by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1952, and the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952.
The Regulations are made under powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Police Pensions Act, 1948, and also by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952. It is the latter Act which enables payments to be made under these Regulations with effect from 1st October last instead of from the coming into operation of the Regulations. Therefore, the Regulations give the greatest measure of retrospection possible under the circumstances. In accordance with the Police Pensions Act my right hon. and learned Friend has consulted the Police Council and that body has expressed itself as being in agreement with the Regulations. As that body speaks for the Police and the Police Authorities I think it can be accepted that they are in agreement with these proposals.
The Pensions (Increase) Act provided for flat rate increases in the various types of public service pensions, the amount of the increase tapering off for pensions beginning after 1st April, 1948, until no increase is given for pensions starting after 1st April, 1952. The principle of that Act was to give an increase of pension in respect of a period during which there was a fall in the value of money and a general increase in wages and salaries. Most public service pensions are determined by the final rate of pay of the pensioner, or the pensioner's husband as the case may be.
That is not so in the case of the pensions to police widows, that is, not generally so. There is one class of pension, the special pension awarded in the case of widows of police officers who lost their lives in the execution of their duty, where the pension is assessed on the basis of the police officer's rate of pay. In that case the widow is dealt with under these Regulations as she would have been under the Pensions (Increase) Act.
But special provision is necessary in the case of other police widows, because of the flat rate basis upon which they receive their pensions. Provision to this end has now been made in the Regula-

tions, and the general effect is that police widows' pensions and children's allowances will attract the same increase, usually one-third of the existing pension, as if the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, had applied directly to them, subject, however, to the following qualifications.
First, there is no tapering off of increase in the case of flat rate awards granted during the period 1st April, 1948, to 4th July, 1948. Secondly, a special measure of increase, on conditions similar to those laid down in the Pensions (Increase) Act, is given in the case of police widows awarded flat rate pensions between 4th July, 1948, and 6th April, 1949, who have hitherto been in a somewhat anomalous position. This anomaly arose because following the recommendation of the Oaksey Committee, in 1949, flat rate widows' pensions were increased to 19s. 2d., 23s., or 26s. 10d. a week according to the husband's rank, but only when the husband died after 6th April, 1949, which was the date of the report.
The Home Secretary came to the conclusion that there were not sufficient grounds for continuing any significant distinction between the widows whose husbands died between 4th July, 1948, and 6th April, 1949, and those who died on or after the later date. He therefore proposes this special increase which will have the broad effect of putting all those police widows who have been awarded flat rate pensions on or after 5th July, 1948. on the same level of benefit.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devon-port): These are complicated matters, but when the hon. Gentleman says that there is no significant distinction left are the rates now exactly the same for all these categories of police widows?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Speaking off-hand, for all categories of police widows since 5th July, 1948, the basis is exactly the same. I cannot think of any exception, subject, of course, to the case of the special pensions in the few special cases I have mentioned.
There is, of course, a special difficulty in this connection. That arises by reason of the fact that up to 5th July, 1948, police officers were excepted from State insurance. They were brought in by the National Insurance Act to State insurance on 5th July, 1948, together with a large number of other people. Under


the National Insurance Act, however, a qualifying period of three years was required before a widow of a policeman could obtain a national insurance pension.
The Oaksey Committee considered this point, and they thought that the qualifying period was particularly hard in this special case. For that special reason they recommended that special supplementary pensions should be paid from the Police Fund, equal in amount to the National Insurance widows' pensions which they would have received but for the fact that their husbands died before they had paid the necessary number of contributions.
It is important to notice that the recommendation of the Oaksey Committee was applicable to the widows of contributors and the Committee recommended that the qualifying period in their case should be waived. There was a special reason applicable peculiarly to the police why they had suffered hardship because of the existence of that qualifying period.
It was suggested to the Oaksey Committee that all pre-1948 widows should be brought up to equality with post-1948 widows and I should like to refer to paragraph 145 of the Report of the Committee. When they considered this matter they said:
Several witnesses, including the representatives of men now serving, have drawn our attention to the position of widows whose husbands died before 5th July, 1948. They have left us in no doubt that in a number of cases the existing pension does not enable the widow to enjoy a standard of living in any way comparable with that to which she was accustomed when her husband was serving.
Police widows are not, however, in general worse off in this respect than widows of men in many other occupations and for this reason we do not think we are justified in dealing with the claims which have been made on their behalf. If any of the hardships which have been brought to our notice are found to be peculiar to the police service we hope that they will be dealt with in the light of our recommendations.
For these reasons the Oaksey Committee did not recommend bringing the pre-1948 widows into line with the post-1948 widows.
Further representations have been made to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I can assure the House that he has given the most careful and sympathetic consideration to them. He has, however, felt himself bound to come to

the conclusion, for the same reasons that the Oaksey Committee found, that there are not grounds for bringing the pre-1948 widows into line with those who came into the scheme afterwards.
I have dealt with the broad proposals comprised in these Regulations. I have not dealt with the special cases of the widows of policemen who may be murdered in the course of their duty. I have not done so partly because it is only a matter of days since this question was discussed in the House and I then gave an assurance that the matter would be considered. Perhaps I might say that that assurance has been kept and that very active consideration of this question is now taking place. There is no question of that aspect having been overlooked. I mention it at this stage merely to assure the House that that is so.
I wish to comment on the manner of presentation of these Regulations. It has been suggested that the footnotes to the Regulations are inadequate for the purpose that they are intended to serve. It is true that in Regulation 1 there is a reference to paragraph (3) of Regulation 10; but in Regulation 10 of the Police Pensions Regulations, 1949, there is no paragraph (3). It is necessary to ascertain that that paragraph has been amended by an intervening Regulation. That is a fair point to take. It would be possible to put in footnotes to indicate all these various amendments.
If footnotes were provided, the result might well be more confusing than when they are omitted. We might reach a point at which there were more footnotes than Regulations, which I do not think would be helpful, but if the House feels that very full footnotes are desirable, then the request will certainly be noted for future use. It is only a question of what is convenient for the House, and if hon. Members express their views, those views will be taken into account for the future.
It has been suggested that the time is ripe for consolidation—that there should be a consolidated set of Regulations. That is certainly desirable, but there is a special difficulty in this case. Section 3 of the Act is somewhat peculiar, for, under it, Regulations may be made which are applicable to future pensioners —both police officers and their widows—and they may also be made applicable


to the widows of deceased or retired police officers; but they may not be made in the case of existing police officer pensioners. Thus, if any attempt were made under the existing law to provide consolidated Regulations, it could be only a partial attempt; and the result would be extremely confusing.
It may be suggested that the law should be amended, but I understand that the result achieved was not wholly accidental. If hon. Members feel that an Amendment should be made, that view will be considered, but there are difficulties and, on the whole, I am not certain that more use would be derived from consolidation than from the way in which the matter has been dealt with here.
I have tried to outline the intention of the Regulations to the House and to explain why they are in this form. I think the House generally will welcome them, and I ask that they should be approved.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The House is indebted to the Under-Secretary of State for the care and detail with which he has explained these very complicated Regulations. I know from past experience that it is difficult to make them sound interesting, and in some instances the applications also make it difficult for the Regulations to be made even intelligible; and we thank the hon. Member for the way in which he has tried to place them before us.
We are, however, in this difficulty. If we rejected these Regulations, the first effect would be that beneficiaries under them would have their benefits postponed. It is not possible to make their benefits retrospective, so that anything we did tonight in the way of rejecting these Regulations to get better ones would mean that a certain number of people, none of whom is well blessed with this world's goods, would be denied a small Christmas box. I am sure that no one desires to see that happen. I am, therefore, sure that the House will approve the benefits which the Regulations confer.
I regret that it was not possible for the hon. Gentleman to make a pronouncement about the case of the widows of officers murdered on duty. This is a matter which, the Home Secretary

knows, concerned me very much before I left the Home Office, and I know it causes him equal concern, and today, of all days, it must be very prominently in our minds. I therefore hope that if there is any representative of the Treasury here other than the Patronage Secretary to convey the views of the House to the Chancellor—[Interruption.] I am quite sure I am speaking for every Member of the House when I say that we sincerely hope that it may be possible for an arrangement to be made to deal with the particular cases, and I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will continue to press the Chancellor very hard on these matters.
The matter of dealing with police pensions is in Order and in Regulation, and is very difficult because of the long memories of the police. After all, the police are trained to have long memories. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he has been cross-examining a police officer in days gone by, has had to suggest that it is very difficult for a man to remember six months afterwards exactly what happened, and what he said to the accused, and what the accused said to him. The effect of police training is, of course, carried over from their public duties into their private interests, and they were very concerned, when we were passing the 1948 Act, that nothing should be done—because they remembered something that happened a very long time ago—that would ever place any police officer in jeopardy so far as that individual was concerned.
So, we have the astonishing position that the hon. Gentleman revealed to us towards the end of his remarks. Now we hope, in view of the altered relationships between the Police Federation and the Home Office, and the Scottish Office, so far as Scotland is concerned, that we could come to an understanding on both sides by which what the police contend for could be preserved, and, at the same time, that the reasonable flexibility that will make these Regulations intelligible to the ordinary policeman and his wife may be achieved, because what we have been told tonight really illustrates the difficulty.
Fancy an ordinary policeman's widow trying to find out from these Regulations exactly what she is entitled to, and then finding that all depends upon her being able to get and collate all the documents


mentioned in footnote (c) of the document with the principal Regulations and the Act. It is, of course, quite beyond any such person's abilities, and it must also impose very considerable difficulties on the officers of the Federation when they try to work out for the member of the Federation exactly what the member or the widow of the member is entitled to.
I went through this very carefully, and there appear to be 12 instances in which, if one looks in the principal Order for the exact detail that is referred to in these Regulations, it is not in the principal Order; it is in one of the amending Orders. I will just take only one, because there is no point in going through all 12. I think it is the one to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. I may, perhaps, just state it in a little more detail. In the new Regulation, Part 1, paragraph 1, October is substituted for January in paragraph (3) of Regulation 10 of the Police Pensions Regulations. If one reads Regulation 10 of the principal Regulations, one finds that the word "January" does not occur, and that the Regulation has no paragraph (3). Then a person has to try to find which of these amending Orders which are set out in footnote (c) will provide the answer about what this new Regulation 1 means.
It must be in the interest of members of the Police Force, as well as of hon. Members to have Regulations which bear, on the face of them, all the information which is necessary for anyone who wants to know to what he is entitled. I want to make clear that it is no fault of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or his Under-Secretary, that the House and the Police Force are faced with this difficulty. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were here I could point to an eloquent speech which he made, when the 1948 Act was going through, which helped to land us in the difficulty which confronts us tonight.
I would appeal to the members of the Police Council and the Police Federation to agree to something which will preserve what they want to have preserved and will, at the same time, enable the House, the police authorities and the members of the Police Force to know exactly to what they are entitled under these Acts. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that

present policemen, and ex-policemen enjoying a pension, should always be assured that they will retain that pension no matter what alterations we make in the law. It may possibly be that they might get a little more under a future amendment, but they ought to be assured that they will not suffer loss. If it could go forth from this House that that position is agreed, I would hope that we would be able to get Regulations presented to this House which on the face of them, are intelligible.
There is one class of policeman's widow to which I would like to refer. I know the answer which will be given tonight; but some of the earliest police pensioners' widows are, like the widows of other public servants of about the same time, in parlous circumstances. They are a small and diminishing body. I doubt whether in a decade there will be any left. It sometimes makes one feel a little mean—and I felt this when I was Home Secretary as well as when sitting on this side of the House—when one sees some of these people whose husbands were never well paid, and who would never have thought it possible for policemen to get the wages they are getting today, even allowing for the altered value of money. These widows have never had an easy time, and are now in extreme penury.
I do not intend to go in detail through the various benefits conferred by these Regulations. If the Police Council and the Police Federation have agreed to them I do not think it is reasonable that we should subject them to any great scrutiny. I hope that, on the lines I have indicated, it may be possible to arrive at an arrangement which will enable our future discussions on Regulations such as these to be conducted in a way in which it will be quite easy to see, on the face of the Regulations, what we are doing.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I do not want to detain the House for very long at this time of night, but for a few moments I want to emphasise a point made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), which was touched on by the Under-Secretary, namely, that one would have hoped that today, particularly, the opportunity would have been taken by the Government to make a


statement about the position of the widows of police officers killed on duty.
As the Home Secretary knows, I have raised this matter before. I must say that he is giving very sympathetic consideration to it; and from what the Under-Secretary said a few moments ago I understand that it is receiving very active consideration. Nevertheless, I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me when I say that it is a matter of some urgency. We do not want this delayed for weeks on end. We are most anxious to get a decision at an early date. I have a Question down about it this week, and I hoped that the matter could have been touched on tonight and something definite said.
I cannot see why the discussions need take so long, and I am sure I am not wrong in requesting that the most earnest consideration be given to this subject. On the previous occasion upon which this issue was discussed sympathy was expressed from all parts of the House, and I am sure that sympathy is shared by the people in the country. I am convinced that if the Government could take an early decision it would be welcomed. The police authorities, in principle, support the Regulations being brought forward tonight, but I would observe that at a time when the Metropolitan Police force is 30 per cent. below strength the question of pensions is of serious concern to those who may become police officers in future. All the discussions I have had with those who are either in the Police Force or are considering joining show that they are deeply concerned about the pension to be awarded in the event of certain tragic happenings.
I had, therefore, hoped that the Regulations could have been a bit more generous. Perhaps that is something which may come later. I urge upon the Government that, if they could take a more generous view of pensions for the police and the dependants of police, it would encourage recruiting tremendously. It would be money very well spent, because the police are much under strength, particularly in the Metropolitan area. This is a time when the Government might well respond, and I hope something can be done about it.
These Regulations are extremely complicated for policemen who wish to know

where they stand in these matters, and they would welcome something simpler if it could be produced later. Having said that, I wish to thank the Government for bringing forward these Regulations tonight, and I hope they will be able to consider the points I have made, particularly with regard to the most urgent decision on the case of the dependants of police officers killed on duty.

11.44 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I make my first point with some difficulty because I am a Member of the Statutory Instruments Committee, which, I understand, has not yet reported to the House after its meeting last night. Perhaps I might take refuge in the debate which took place in another place on this set of Regulations, and say that, even, there, the drafting of these Regulations was severely criticised.
All of us are in the difficulty of not wishing to hold up these Regulations by opposing them on the ground that they do not say what they mean. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, quite a number of references in these Regulations have no meaning in the form in which they appear, and only the good will of those who interpret them and of those who read the debate which has taken place tonight can give the Regulations the meaning the Home Secretary seeks to place upon them.
If we are to have references in Regulations to other Regulations, then such references should be made to Regulations in their latest amended form. The Regulations with which we are dealing tonight have been so amended in the last few years that it is time they were consolidated and some clarity given to them.
But the main point I wish to make arises out of the fact that these Regulations still leave an anomaly as between one police officer's widow and another. How great is that anomaly is shown by the simple figures of pensions paid at present to the widows of policemen and police sergeants. If their husbands happened to die before 7th April, 1948, they receive 30s. a week, if before 4th April, 1949, 41s. 6d., and if, conveniently, they died after that date, 49s. 2d. a week. There is a discrepancy of 19s. 2d. a week between those groups.
I am very happy to know that the Home Secretary, in raising the police widows' pensions, has eliminated the middle class of anomalies, but he still leaves the very small group of widows of older police officers of this country suffering what I believe to be a very serious injustice. During the past two or three years we have been trying to put right the wrongs and economic hardships which numerous groups of pensioners suffer owing to the fact that though their pensions might have been adequate at the time they were granted, based on wages or salaries of five or ten years ago, they are now no longer adequate owing to the rise that has taken place in the cost of living since that time. But certain groups remain, and some police widows are among them.
I hope it is not too late for the Home Secretary to change his mind, and that he will do justice to a group of widows of men who served their country well in a service for which the whole of this House has a tremendous affection.

11.49 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I want to add my plea to what has already been said by several hon. Members about the position of the pre-1948 widows of members of the Police Force. To begin with, I think it is a most extraordinary thing that there is no representative of the Treasury present. But I am not at all surprised, because, of course, I am fairly sure that both the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary are in favour of doing something for the classes of widows who have been mentioned this evening, and that the only reason why we have not had more generous treatment is because my right hon. and learned Friend has not been able to get agreement with the Treasury. Of course, it would be extremely embarrassing for the Financial Secretary to be here.

Mr. L. M. Lever: He is here.

Miss Ward: I am very glad he has arrived, because it is a most iniquitous thing that this particular class of widows should have been left out of these new arrangements.
Not so long ago I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to appoint a committee to look into this kind of case. When he had to answer me at the

Despatch Box he said that although he would not commit himself to setting up a committee he had the greatest sympathy with the cases that were put forward. I want to make it plain that sympathy is not enough. We owe a very great debt to this class of the community, which is continually being overlooked. My view is that the Treasury, in their isolation, have no idea of the hardships that this type of people are up against. I am sure that the Home Secretary, coming from a very distinguished constituency in Liverpool, knows the facts only too well.
I am very sorry that the Treasury have not seen their way to do justice to this section of the community and I add my plea to those that have been made for the widows of policemen who were killed on duty. Two years ago—at any rate, it was the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was Home Secretary—I raised in the House the specific case of a policeman who had been killed on duty, somewhere in Yorkshire. At that time, I was told that the matter was to be looked at. It is intolerable that it should have taken years to discuss this very simple matter. I can only assume that that is because the Home Secretary, in both the old Government and in this Government have been putting up a gallant fight against the Treasury.
It is wrong that these important issues should have to be discussed at this time of night, when we cannot have the Chancellor of the Exchequer here or ask for an answer from the Financial Secretary. We have just to take the opportunity of expressing our deep regret that these two specific classes of people have not been dealt with. I hope that what has been said tonight will be reported to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressing to him the disapproval of the House at the arrangements for this most defenceless class of the population.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devon-port): Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with what the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) has said about the Treasury. I remember that when some such remarks were made from this side that they seemed to arouse strong feelings. I believe that that is the case with the


present Regulations. Everyone is agreed on two propositions in regard to them we welcome their introduction, and the increase that is being given to the police under them. There is a strong case for even greater increases, since it is a most sensible way of dealing with the crime wave. It is much better than many other proposals that have been made elsewhere.
We are all horrified at the shocking complication of these Regulations, but there is one virtue which may be extracted from these complications, that is, that it does strengthen the case which has been made from both sides for dealing simply and drastically with this question of the pre-July, 1948, rates. If the Regulations are so complicated that practically nobody in the House can understand them, and, if they are so complicated that it is almost impossible for any members of the Police Force to understand them, it follows all these other categories which might be affected if the Home Secretary did change the Regulations, would not be able to understand them either.
Therefore, he is not going to land himself into any great difficulties if, at this hour of night, he slips through the agreement to make this change. No one would be able to notice it outside the Police Force, and, if he noticed it, he would not be able to track it down anyhow. I do not think that this, the first of the Home Secretary's reasons for rejecting an attempt to assimilate all these widows' pensions, is a valid one.
I should like to try to discover exactly what is the position. I particularly wish to do so in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King). I am sure that his knowledge and understanding of the Regulations is better than mine, but, certainly, the information I have received differs somewhat from his. What is the effect of these Regulations? The Under-Secretary said that whereas they affected all three categories before, this was now being reduced to two categories and that the amount to be paid to the widows, whose husbands had died between July, 1948, and April, 1949, was being assimilated to those who had died after April, 1949. I should be interested to know, for certain, whether that is the case because the Under-Secretary used a curious

phrase when he said that there is no significant distinction between them.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There is a distinction, but the only difference will be that these transitional widows will have to satisfy the conditions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, in order to get their basic pensions brought up to the 19s. 2d. figure. It will not affect the National Insurance element and they will still get the basic element. But, to get the increase on the basic element, they will have to satisfy the conditions of the Pensions (Increase) Act. Those conditions are that they must be over 40 years of age, or have a dependent child or children. or be incapable of self-support.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful for the statement, although it still leaves me in some confusion about the general position. As I understand, subject to these other conditions which have to he established, there is still a system of three scales, which would mean, under the new Regulations. that they would be: 32s. 6d. for the first category, 43s. 6d. for the second category, and 51s. 8d. for the third category. These figures are different from those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test.
It may be I have the wrong figures, but I have been provided with them by people who know very much more about these Regulations than I do, who have studied them in great detail, and who have been urging, for many months, that all the pensions should be assimilated and put on the same rate. The reply of the Under-Secretary, when he said there is still some distinction between the last two categories, strengthens even further the case which we have made that the whole of the pensioners should be put on the same rate as those whose husbands died after 1949.
We have not had adequate reasons from the Under-Secretary for rejecting that demand. He rested his case chiefly on saying that this had been approved generally by the police representatives with whom he had discussed the matter. I do not know into what details they went on this subject, but it is certainly true that there are a great number of police officers throughout the country who have been urging that an assimilation should be made.
No doubt other hon. Members have received the same statement that I received from the National Association of Retired Police Officers, whose secretary lives near to my constituency. He has put the case to me with considerable detail. Their Association has 26,000 members, according to their claim, and I am sure that they must have considerable support. Although there may have been general agreement among the police authorities with whom the matter was discussed it is also true that there are a great number of police officers who would welcome assimilation, and I do not think that argument of the hon. Gentleman is a very strong one. If he made further inquiries he would find that the police generally would welcome the assimilation we propose.
His other argument was that it might raise difficulties with the Treasury. Presumably, that would be in dealing with other categories of pensioners in different fields. I am not sufficiently knowledge-able about these matter to know which categories that might be, but I do not think there would be any great complaint from any category if these concessions—if the House prefers that word, though I do not think it is the proper one—this right, was granted to these widows.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said it was not a great number. I do not know the figure and I should he grateful if the Under-Secretary would tell us. I understand that the total number of police widows who would be involved if this were done outside the Metropolitan areas is some 7,000. I do not know the figure for London, but the total cannot be very great We had an answer from the Home Secretary a few weeks ago about the amount of money, £62,000, which is involved—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is —65,000."] I thought it was £62,000—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): indicated dissent.

Miss Ward: It is £65,000.

Mr. Foot: There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who are prompting me on the matter. The Home Secretary shakes his head. I do not know whether that means the figure is greater or less—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The figure is greater. We have had discussions on this on several occasions, and I have met deputations. They were proceeding on a basis which did not cover all the facts. One cannot estimate the figure exactly, but I should think it is between a quarter of a million and £300,000.

Mr. Foot: I am surprised at that answer, although of course I accept it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Even so, I should be interested to see how the figure is worked out. I do not know whether that takes into account what would be the reduction in National Assistance if this were done. A number of these widows must be receiving National Assistance at the present time, and there would, therefore, be some reduction on that figure. I thought the figure was considerably smaller. But whatever it is, there seems a strong case for doing what has been asked for from both sides of the House.
If it is a question of the figure which is the reason why the Government are refusing this proposal, we should be told. We should be told the main reasons why the Government refuse this demand, because I believe it is a demand which has strong support throughout the country, and one which will not involve the Government in difficulty in respect of other cases. It is a demand which, if continuously refused, does lay us open to the charge of meanness.
Therefore, I hope that the Government, in view of the request made from both sides of the House, will reconsider this suggestion. Even if they do not do it in these Regulations, which is what I would like, could they give an undertaking that they will examine the situation afresh to see if they can clear up this anomalous position, and put it on a straightforward basis?

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Michael Higgs: Having had, in a perfectly respectable capacity, considerable association with police officers. I welcome as heartily as other hon. Gentlemen the improvement in pensions brought about by these Regulations, but I should like to say a word or two on the subject of their form.
In quite another sphere of public service it was brought home to me only last week, when I was seeing some people


concerned with a similar matter, how important to the subject of recruiting is the question of pensions. I can picture a young man contemplating the Police Force as a career taking home to his girl friend the necessary documents and trying to explain to her what her pension rights would be. Reference was made to note (c) of the Regulations being based on three or four previous Regulations, but note (f) refers to no fewer than eight previous Regulations, which, presumably, must be consulted and fitted together like a jigsaw before the answer is found, and the young lady satisfied.
If it is impossible to codify for technical reasons at least it would be a considerable help if something which is comprehensible, and contains all the necessary information, is produced for those intending to join the Police Force. That is one of the great essentials if we are to get the recruits the force needs.
On the merits of the Regulations I have not a great deal to add to what has been said. This is just another occasion on which the House is being asked to adopt some measure to preserve an artificial distinction between benefits to those who are entitled to receive them before a certain date and those who are entitled to receive them after a certain date. The Under-Secretary said it had been decided there was no longer a case for preserving a distinction between those entitled to receive a pension on 5th July, 1948, and those entitled to receive a pension on 6th April 1949.
It is equally well arguable that there is no ground for distinction between those who become eligible on 4th July 1948. and those who become eligible on 5th July, 1948. Two widows left in similar circumstances on successive days still have to shop in the same market, and have to face the same problems.
It is also worth bearing in mind in these and similar cases that those who get the least are the eldest. They are the least able to supplement their pensions by their own earning capacity. But the most cogent lesson to be learned—and the House is taking long to learn it—is that every time we pass Regulations or make a new law we merely add to the complexities which someone will have to face in producing a code for all public service pensions, doing justice all round.
While I would not suggest that the House should reject these Regulations, I hope that hon. Members, and my right hon. Friends who, from time to time, introduce similar proposals, will always bear in mind that every time that is done the ultimate solution becomes more difficult.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I join with those hon. Members in all parts of the House who have welcomed these Regulations. They are, of course, welcome because they afford increases of pension to those concerned, but our complaint is that the older widows are penalised.
Some months ago, and recently, the National Association of Retired Police Officers were received by the Home Secretary. I had the privilege of accompanying the delegates who attended these meetings. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman very warmly for the courtesy he extended to the representatives of the Association when we put these matters to him. We are glad that he has found it possible to close the gap between what I term the transitional widows and the post-Oaksey widows. By admitting the transitional widows, he has admitted into the category, and we are not complaining about it, those who did not contribute to the National Insurance Fund.
Once having done that, there is no good ground why he should not have gone the whole way and simplified the administration by extending the same benefits to all classes of widows. The cardinal fact is that the husbands of the pre-insurance widows had no opportunity of contributing. They were excluded because of their calling, but these Regulations propose to treat the widows of those officers as though they were defaulters. They were not, yet these Regulations treat this category of widows as though their husbands had failed to pay their contributions.
That is not so. If they had not the opportunity of contributing, why should they be penalised. They were not defaulters. Consequently, there should be no differential treatment. The wages received by the husbands of these widows were not as good as the wages paid today, and they paid superannuation at the rate


of 5 per cent. of their pay. This meant an average of 4s. a week for the constable. Such a constable, had he lived, would have been entitled to a pension of £3 3s. a week. Now that he is dead his widow can receive only £30 a year under the Police Pensions Act, 1921.
It is true that this can be built up to 32s. 6d. a week, by the combined effect of subsequent legislation; but is it right that a policeman's widow whose husband was excluded from the opportunity of contributing to the National Insurance Fund should be treated in this way? It should be remembered that the wife of a policeman is in a peculiar position among wives. All her antecedents are carefully scrutinised. The authorities want to know all about her for security purposes. She has to undertake many of the duties of her husband, particularly in the case of a village policeman.
We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having brought forward these improved conditions so as to close one of the gaps which exist in the pensions provisions, but we feel that he should look at the matter again and close all the gaps, because the scheme would be easier to administer. Hon. Members opposite have pleaded that the life of the country should be simplified by less form filling and fewer Regulations. Now the right hon. and learned Gentleman has an opportunity to live up to the professions of his party.
I welcome the Regulations, but I hope the Home Secretary will again consult the Treasury, because, bearing in mind the contribution which the Police Force has made to the welfare and safety of this realm, in time of peace and in war, I am sure we ail feel that this diminishing class of older widowed pensioner is entitled to treatment no less good than that given to the wives of those who died after this specified date.
Why should an arbitrary date alter the conditions? The Home Secretary is a kindly man and I am sure that, having heard the views of all parts of the House, he will reconsider the matter. I am sure that on a free vote the whole House would urge a reconsideration of the present differential treatment. I support the Regulations, but I hope the Home Secretary will think again about the point I have made.

12.18 a.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will keep the House for only a few minutes. This has been a helpful debate, even though there has been some criticism of the Regulations. I thank the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), for what he said, which was most helpful. although, in one instance, he did himself rather less than justice. He spoke of the earliest class of police constables' widows and suggested that they had been overlooked. On a number of occasions their pensions have been advanced —on two occasions when the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary —and almost without exception they would now be eligible for 32s. 6d., which is the full supplemental widow's rate.
Although no doubt hon. Members would like to see more done, the position is not quite as bad as might be thought. The hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot) said, very rightly, that this sort of measure is the best way to deal with the crime wave. but then, rather surprisingly, went on to try to tempt the Home Secretary to commit forgery. It may be that something could be done by the means he suggested to remove the difference between the pre-1948 and the post-1948 widow, but the fact is that the proposal made by hon. Members is to give the benefit of the National Insurance scheme to dependants of men who were never insured under that scheme.
That is the proposal. The right hon. Member for South Shields could not accept it and nor can my right hon. and learned Friend. Quite clearly, that proposal is going far beyond anything which hon. Members have in their minds about the particular difficulties of this particular case. That is the reason, and it is the reason which, I think, all hon. Members, if they found themselves in the position of Home Secretary, would have to accept, however much it goes against the grain, that we could not bring these two classes of people in line with one another. I hope that the House can now give its approval to these Regulations.

Resolved,

That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved

12.21 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I beg to move,
That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November. be approved.
The Regulations cover the same ground as those for England and Wales. We have had a very full debate on those, and I think that I should be acting as the House would desire if I merely formally moved the acceptance of these Regulations.

12.22 a.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I only want to ask whether we are to be told that the Secretary of State for Scotland will consult the Home Secretary for England and Wales about going back to the Chancellor to see whether they cannot get some better terms. It may well be that my hon. Friend thinks he has only got to move formally these Regulations and that everybody is going to say "Hear, hear," but I am very glad we are having two sets of Regulations brought forward tonight, because I was profoundly disappointed with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
My hon. Friend talked a good deal about National Insurance, and I quite see the difficulty from that point of view, but there is nothing, so far as I know, to prevent the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland from doing something better for those people who have been the subject of this debate. I want to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary of State that, if the Home Secretary in England and Wales is not prepared to challenge the Chancellor, Scotland, in defence of Scottish police officers' widows, will take that action. I shall be glad to hear that we are to have something done.

12.23 a.m

Miss Margaret Herbison: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome these Regulations as far as they go. I do agree wholeheartedly with those who have made criticism of the form of the Regulations. I am quite certain that no policeman—indeed, no ordinary citizen, and I take it that we are all ordinary citizens—would have any idea at all just what is to be found in these Regulations, if he

read them a dozen times, and because of that I do feel that a very quick attempt to simplify them ought to be made both by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I am sure that one of the extra Under-Secretaries of State we have now might give his time to this question of simplifying these very difficult Regulations. I do not agree at all with the point put forward by an hon. Member opposite who suggested that any young man wanting to make sure of his girl friend and wanting to join the Police Force would influence her if simpler Regulations were brought forward, but I think that for other reasons these Regulations ought to be made much more simple.
I shall not take up another point stressed by almost every speaker on both sides. I am afraid that, as, perhaps, a hard-headed Scotswoman, I must agree with the point that has been put forward by the Under-Secretary of State that, as things are, it is quite impossible to take this one class of widow and treat them differently from other classes of widows. I was a teacher before I became a Member of Parliament. I know the hardship that has been caused to the widows of teachers, those who were widows before 1948 and, indeed, some who have become widows since 1948.
The plea I want to make to the Under-Secretaries for England and Wales, and for Scotland, is wider than any which has been made tonight. If they carry to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a plea for this one class of widow the Chancellor has an easy answer, namely, that if it is done for the one class it will have to be done for all classes; but if we could get the co-operation of the Under-Secretaries, or of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Home Office, in saying that it has been voiced clearly tonight that there is a case for the widows of teachers and every other category, we may get somewhere. We shall get nowhere if we confine it to the widows who may be covered by these Regulations. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to say whether he can support this plea.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Lady has made her appeal with great charm, and it is difficult not to fall at once for her blandishments. All I can say is that she can hardly expect my hon.


Friends and I, though competent, to do what she and her hon. Friends failed to do when in office. This is a difficult matter. Nevertheless. I think that it is logically right, and that this is probably the right way to do it. We will look at the suggestion carefully. Personally, as to the form of the Regulations, I agree with her. I would like very much, with the assistance of my hon. Friends, to make them simpler.

Resolved.

That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November. be approved.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the repayment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sum paid before the passing of the said Act of the present Session by way of development charge which, having regard to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session, ought not to have been paid.

Orders of the Day — MINERS' X-RAY SCHEME

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Leather: This is the third successive year on which I have raised the question of the desirability of a compulsory regular X-ray for miners and I regret that little has been done to achieve that end in the three years I have been arguing the case.
I do not want that to be taken as a reflection on the many able and good people who have been doing experimental work and research; but in the way of bringing in a concerted, organised scheme to cover all miners, we are where we stood three years ago. For the last three years I have been arguing that the simplest, cheapest, and quickest way to do this is to use a miniature X-ray film,

but the experts, particularly the doctors, refused to accept my view. They said it was not good enough, and would not produce the right answers. I did not accept those views.
We have moved on in these three years and I wish to make a more thorough and elaborate suggestion which I hope the Minister's experts and his doctors will not be able to shut down so easily as my last one. I want to suggest that today the technical difficulties, which prevented introduction of an overall plan for compulsory X-ray three years ago, no longer exist. Sufficient technicians are available now. Sufficient equipment could be made available in a matter of six months at the very outside; there is no problem today that all those who make the equipment are manufacturing something else. It could be done.
I therefore suggest that it is eminently possible and practicable now to have an overall scheme in the worst areas, using a full-sized X-ray plate, the perfect plate which, the doctors say, gives the right answer. Obviously, it would be desirable to have this great preventive measure for all, but that would entail a very large scheme. I therefore suggest that, if it is not practical to do it for all, it is practical to do it in the areas which need it most.
Experience and statistics show that about 85 to 90 per cent. of this problem of dust in miners' lungs affects two areas. mainly South Wales and the Somerset coalfields and Scotland. For some reason best known to our Creator, the vast majority of the problem of dust in miners' lungs exists in those two districts, which, between them, employ about 250,000 men. I am asking for this to be provided for 250,000 and not for 700.000 men, which makes the problem much smaller and simpler.
I say that the technicians and the equipment are available now in this country to provide such a scheme for those two districts, which would cover far and away the worst of this immense problem. I further say that, in my view the total cost of this scheme to the National Coal Board would be of the order of £250,000 a year; that is the gross cost. The saving in human lives, in manpower and production would be immense in comparison with that small cost.
I should now like to say a word about the question of compulsion. I believe


that the compulsory principle is of tremendous importance. I repeat, I do not for one moment underrate the very valuable work that lots of good people and lots of experienced doctors are doing at the present time, but there is no overall plan to make use of a great deal of the knowledge that some of our doctors have. One can talk to half-a-dozen experts in South Wales alone and find that they are responsible to quite different organisations.
There is fine work being done in the University of Wales, which is quite separate, and any contact it has with the Research Unit of the National Coal Board, and so on, is purely incidental and due to the fact that the doctors know each other. There is no plan to make use of the knowledge they have. By the same token, there is no plan to bring in all miners. There are some valleys in which every man, woman and child is being X-rayed; there are others in which nobody is being X-rayed; and there are others in which those who particularly want to be X-rayed and have an easy opportunity have been done.
If we are to overcome this dreadful problem of dust in the lungs of our miners, the only possible way in which it can be done is by having a periodic X-ray of every miner compulsorily. Then, and only then, will we be able to get the disease in the man's lungs in its early stages, when it has only infected 5 or 10 per cent., when one can say to him, "We are sorry, but you will have to go away for treatment. But you go as a comparatively sound man; you are not going up as a physical wreck, condemned to live out the rest of your days in poverty and degradation because you are no longer fit to work"—which is what has happened in the past because, in most cases, we have never caught this disease until it has been too late.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am extremely interested in the case which the hon. Gentleman is making, and I agree with much that he says. But is he suggesting that this should be made compulsory for miners, an examination which we would not make compulsory for any other section of our people?

Mr. Leather: Yes, for this reason. The miner works in a concentration of dust.

Pneumoconiosis primarily affects miners, though it does affect other sections of the population, but only to a very small extent. It is a miner's disease and is inherent in the industry. We could quite easily say to every miner that as a matter of form he should have an annual medical check-up, such as many employers in other industries give to their employees. It could be once a year, every 18 months or every two years. We would tell him, "We are simply going to put you in front of an X-ray machine to see what your lungs look like. We hope and pray that the majority of you will get a clean bill of health." In that way we could catch the disease in time.
The good miner. the man who feels in his heart that there is something wrong, is the one who is determined to go on and not to go to the doctor. He fights his illness year after year, and one day he just drops in his tracks. The doctor says to him, "I am sorry, but you are finished," and that man is on the scrap heap.
There are hundreds of such people in mining villages up and down the country. The difficulties of running such a scheme are negligible. I have been told by some people who ought to know better that there is a psychological difficulty, that if a miner were told that he had to have a compulsory X-ray he would get panicky. I do not regard that as a serious difficulty. It would be perfectly simple to hand every man as he went through the X-ray unit a leaflet explaining that it was in his own interests and purely as a protective measure to see, year after year, that he was keeping fit and well.
There surely can be no argument that a regular, compulsory X-ray scheme is the only known sure method of preventing many miners from becoming physical wrecks in later years. Such examinations have been carried out in other countries for many years. There is no question about its practical benefits, because they have been proved. The technicians and the equipment are available to do it here. The only thing lacking is the drive or any sense of urgency at—and I use the phrase advisedly—official levels.
I know where my hon. Friend's heart is and where his right hon. Friend's heart is, but there has been a complete lack of any sense of urgency about this thing in the Ministry, in the Coal Board,


and in the other relevant Ministries who should be concerned. Innocent men in the mines are today sowing the seeds of their own ruin in the later years of their lives. Innocent men are every day causing irreparable damage to their lungs, which will make the later years of their lives a misery. Science has the power to stop it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has the power to stop it, and I implore him in the name of all that is human to take what steps he can to prevent this constant tragedy in the mining industry. Let him stop it, and stop it now.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Horace E. Holmes: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) very carefully, and I think that the picture he has painted is far too black. I speak from a wide experience in the mining industry. As I said the other night, it is 50 years since I first went into the pit, and in later years have played no small part in the matter of the suppression of the dust which causes these lung diseases. I pay my tribute to the vast amount of work that has been done since nationalisation, in connection with these examinations.

Mr. Leather: Does the hon. Member understand that the National Union of Mineworkers agrees with me?

Mr. Holmes: I know the views of the National Union of Mineworkers, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the National Coal Board on this subject, and I say, as one who is in the mining industry, that I hope they will not enforce compulsory examination.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about technicians and equipment being available, and about the South-West corner of England and Scotland being almost exclusive in this matter. I say, as politely as I can, that the hon. Gentleman does not know his book. Other areas have been excluded because it was thought that lung diseases did not arise. What has happened is that diagnosis is far better than it was a few years ago. We are finding from time to time that because of this better diagnosis these things are being studied.
It would not be possible to enforce compulsory examination on all the people in the mining industry. We cannot

separate Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands from South Wales and Scotland. A vast amount of work is being done. It is on record that already 4,000 examinations per annum are taking place in South Wales. How often would the compulsory examinations take place? Because a man may be clear today he might not be clear in twelve months from now. The vast amount of work on this matter is extending, and gives a great deal of satisfaction to the National Union of Mineworkers. I say again that I hope compulsory examination will not be enforced, but that the Coal Board will be left to get on with the job, as they are doing now.

12.42 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I hope the House will forgive my rising at this moment. I do so not to cut out any hon. Gentleman who wants to make his contribution to the debate, but because there is so very much to be said on this subject. I only wish that we could have a two or three hour debate on it. I shall try to get through what I have to say as quickly as I can, so as to give other hon. Members a chance when I have finished. In case the time runs out before I can answer the exceedingly important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) has raised I want to make a start as quickly as possible.
We are all very grateful to him for having raised this question. It is one of the matters which arouse no party controversy. We are all in the same boat, all seeking to do our best. I know full well the great mutual interest and common object which my hon. Friend and I have with other hon. Gentlemen, in seeking to find a solution to this problem. I would also remind my hon. Friend that when he last raised this question on an Adjournment debate, the debate was concluded by my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Fuel and Power. with these words:
I have only one plea to make tonight. Let us not wait too long in this matter; let us press on as early as we can. There is a real job to be done.
That was the view of my right hon. Friend when in Opposition. I can assure the House that it is his view today, and


that we are pressing on with the utmost practicable rapidity.
May I try, as briefly as possible, to say what is the situation and what is the history of this business? If one can understand the immense progress which has been made in recent years, I believe that one gets the whole story into a better perspective. I think we should recall that it was only as recently as 1935 that Dr. D'Arcy Hart went down to South Wales to investigate the problem of chest diseases in miners and began to realise that the problem might originate from coal dust.
Before that it was always assumed that it originated only from silica. Then, it was not until 1942 that that view was crystallised and confirmed and the first Regulations were introduced in 1943 to cover the condition known as pneumoconiosis. What is being done? My hon. Friend rather gave the impression that a number of people were doing things in an unco-ordinated way and rather off their own bat without very much cohesion, consultation, or knowledge of what one another were doing. I can assure him that that is not so.
First and foremost, there is the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee set up especially to avoid any such thing happening. But the objects of that Committee and the objects we are seeking to achieve are rather farther than the immediate objects to which my hon. Friend referred. He was referring solely to the question of immediate diagnosis of the disease. We want to go farther than that because we do not know fully what the cause of the disease is. Until one can tell the cause, one cannot be certain how to prevent the disease, let alone how to cure it.
We are advancing with the twofold object of diagnosis, with which is coupled the question of prevention, and research into the cause of the disease. May I refer briefly to some figures because that, I think, helps to see the trend of what has been happening? Between 1931 and 1943, a period of 13 years, the number of men who were diagnosed as being disabled from silicosis and pneumoconiosis in the mines was only 5,361. Of these, 4,879 came from the South-Western district, which is, practically speaking, South

Wales. The first pneumoconiosis regulations came out in 1943 so, immediately, a new impetus towards diagnosis came into the picture. In the succeeding year, 1944, we had a total throughout the country of 2,001 cases diagnosed and a total in the South-Western district of 1,558.
That was the beginning of the episode of the regulations becoming more known and understood. In 1945, the South-Western numbers rose to 5,180. The figure simply rocketed up in response to the fresh approach to the problem. Then they dropped again until 1948, when there was introduced the new regulations under the Industrial Injuries Act, which conveyed benefits for disablement down to a matter of under 10 per cent. disablement. In that year, they began to rise again and 3,113 cases were diagnosed in the South-Western area and 4,348 throughout the whole country.
In 1949, the new scheme began to attract applicants for diagnosis from a wider area than South Wales and the rest of the country began to come in in much greater numbers. So that it reached its peak in 1949 with a total of 5,016 diagnosed cases of disablement throughout the whole country and only 3,774 from the South-Western area. Since then it has been falling off, and last year the number was down to 1,364 in the South-Western area, a very great reduction, and 3,509 throughout the whole country.
I mention these figures to indicate the size of the problem against the total number of 720,000 miners in the industry, because it will be exceedingly difficult to carry out the mass scheme my hon. Friend has suggested with the good will of the miners when the voluntary scheme conveying benefit of diagnosis of disablement does not result in more than the figure I have quoted at the present time.
In South Wales all new entrants into the industry are radiographically examined. There are 4,000 a year being dealt with in that way. At present they are being dealt with by miniature radiography of the regional hospital board, but for just over 50 minutes now the system has changed, because under an Order which comes into operation today the examination of these people has been transferred to the National Coal Board Medical Service. In future, they will be


examined not by miniature radiography but by full size radiography. That is only the beginning of the scheme. The Coal Board are planning and expect to be able to examine radiographically every new entrant into the industry, in whatever part of the country, by 1957.
It is interesting to note that it is expected that the examinations in South Wales alone of 4,000 men a year complete with case histories and records and the necessary data to make the examination of future value will occupy the whole time of a team of professional scientists. That is the first scheme. The second scheme is one carried out by the regional hospital boards, not in respect of pneumoconiosis but generally in respect of thoracic troubles. This is the miniature radiographic scheme from which, on further examination, small numbers of pneumoconiosis subjects have been located. This has covered another 60,000 miners.
There is a third scheme now being set up and coming into operation next month by the Radiological Sub-Committee of the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee, which is sponsoring tests to ascertain the value of different sizes of radiographical examination. They are to give radiographic examination by three sizes of film, the 70 millimetre, the 5 inch. by 4 inch and the full size. The object of that is to determine the comparative values of X-ray films of different sizes in the diagnosis of the early changes in the chest. That will cover 8,000 people.
Then we have the working pneumoconiotics who have gone back into the mines, 8,000 of them, subject to periodical radiological examination. Then there are special purpose projects by the pneumoconiosis research unit such as the one referred to by my hon. Friend, at Rhondda Fach. There is also the industrial injuries scheme operated by the Ministry of National Insurance, whereby 50,000 X-rays have been taken and 13,150 cases have been diagnosed. It is interesting to note in this connection that in South Wales at present three-quarters of the cases diagnosed are for 10 per cent. or less disablement. On the national basis 40 per cent. are of 10 per cent. or less disablement.
Then there is the 20-pit scheme due to come into operation, which was

initiated by the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee, financed by the Coal Board at an initial cost of £60,000 and an annual cost of £35,000. Under this scheme dust conditions will be examined regularly in addition to radiographic examination of the 20,000 miners working in these 20 pits, to try and relate the incidence of pneumoconiosis to working conditions. That is really the most important thing that can be done. This is a general attack on the problem. Everyone concerned is consulted and is agreeable to it. The Coal Board, of course, are financing it, the National Union of Mineworkers approves of it, the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit are advising on equipment, and Dr. Cochrane himself is acting, as scientific adviser to the board.
As the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes) said, the question of compulsory proposals goes far beyond the possibilities of debate tonight. Such a scheme would need a great many consultations. All the compulsory schemes in coal and other mines overseas brought to my notice cover only 65,000 miners, whereas we are dealing with 720,000.
I know that my hon. Friend has been in touch with Professor Gough, the well-known and admired pathologist, but if he and Professor Gough were to discuss matters with Dr. Gilson I feel sure that they would arrive at the same conclusion as we have, that the compulsory scheme is not the best way to tackle the problem. It has to be tackled with ever increasing energy and effort on the lines I have indicated, and our proposals will be extended and advanced in the light of discoveries made. In that way we shall achieve the best results and the most satisfactory conclusions. We are determined to do all we can to stamp out this disease.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes to One o'Clock, a.m.